DR. UTTARA BHAR,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-55(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The assessee in the present case is an individual, who is carrying on the profession as a Doctor. The returns of income for both the years under consideration were filed by her on 03.08.2005 and 06.11.2008 declaring total income of Rs.2,85,139/- and Rs.4,93,266/- for A.Ys. 2005- 06 and 2008-09 respectively. In the assessments completed for AY 2005- 06 under section 143(3) read with section 147, the total income of the assessee was determined by the Assessing Officer at Rs.5,84,642/- after making addition of Rs.2,94,826/- on account of deposits found to be made in the Bank accounts of the assessee and Rs.4,676/- on account of interest & 1902/KOL./2014 Assessment years: 2005-2006 & 2008-2009 Page 2 of 3 received on the said undisclosed Bank account. A similar addition on account of interest received on undisclosed Bank account amounting to Rs.1,633/- was made by the Assessing Officer to the total income of the assessee, in the assessment completed under section 143(3) read with section 147 for A.Y. 2008-09 besides making another addition of Rs.40,000/- on account of unexplained investment made by the assessee in ICICI Prudential Life insurance.

Against the assessments made by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 147 for both the years under consideration, appeals were preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) disputing the additions made by the Assessing Officer therein. Since there was no full compliance to the notices issued by him fixing the appeals of the asseessee for hearing from time to time, the ld. CIT(Appeals) proceeded to dispose of the appeals of the assessee for both the years under consideration ex parte by two separate orders passed by him, whereby he confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer to the total income of the assessee for both the years under consideration dismissing the appeals of the asseessee. Aggrieved by the orders of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee has preferred these appeals before the Tribunal.

I have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. As rightly pointed out by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, adjournment was sought by the assessee at the time of initial two hearings fixed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) on 22.04.2014 and 23.05.2014 and the hearing fixed thereafter could not be attended by the assessee as there was some miscommunication about the exact date of hearing given by the ld. CIT(Appeals). Keeping in view this submission made by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, which is duly supported by the material available on record including especially the impugned orders of the ld. CIT(Appeals), I am of the opinion that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has not given proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee & 1902/KOL./2014 Assessment years: 2005-2006 & 2008-2009 Page 3 of 3 while disposing of her appeals ex parte by his impugned orders and there is thus a clear violation of principle of natural justice. In that view of the matter, I set aside the impugned orders of the ld. CIT(Appeals) and remit the matter back to him for disposing of the appeals of the assessee for both the years under consideration afresh on merit after giving the assessee proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard. As undertaken by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, the assessee shall comply with the notices issued by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and shall extend full cooperation to the ld. CIT(Appeals) in order to enable him to dispose of her appeals expeditiously without any further delay.