SMT CHITRALEKHA PAUL,KOLKATA vs. THE ITO, WD-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The assessee in the present case is an individual, who filed her return of income for the year under consideration on 13.12.2005 declaring total income of Rs.90,000/-. In the assessment completed under section 143(3) read with section 147, the total income of the assessee was determined by the Assessing Officer at Rs.8,88,000/- after making additions of Rs.3,48,000/-, Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- on account of the undisclosed income against cash deposit, undisclosed investment and unexplained expenses respectively. Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 147, an appeal ./2016 Assessment year: 2005-2006 Page 2 of 3 was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and a detailed written submission was filed by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) in support of her case on all the three issues involved in the appeal. A copy of the said written submission was forwarded by the ld. CIT(Appeals) to the Assessing Officer for his examination and comments. In the remand report submitted to the ld. CIT(Appeals) on 04.01.2016, the Assessing Officer reiterated his findings given in the assessment order. Thereafter the appeal of the assessee was fixed for hearing by the ld. CIT(Appeals) on 03.02.2016 and since no one attended on behalf of the assessee on the said date, he dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.

I have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. As rightly submitted by the ld. counsel for the assessee, only one opportunity was given by the ld. CIT(Appeals) to the assessee of being heard after the receipt of remand report from the Assessing Officer and this position clearly evident from the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) has not been disputed even by the ld. D.R. It is thus clear that the appeal filed by the assessee before him has been dismissed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) without giving proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee and there is a clear violation of principle of natural justice. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) and remit the matter back to him for deciding the appeal of the assessee afresh on merit after giving proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.