TMI Blog2006 (1) TMI 190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 1,05,000 on account of unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. 2.3 Similarly, assessee, Dr. B. Lavanya, a dental doctor by profession, filed her return of income for the assessment year 19992000 on 20-3-2001, declaring total income of Rs. 60,000. Though the said return was initially processed under section 143(1) on 17-9-2001 and returned income was accepted, in the reassessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 made on 29-32004, assessee's total income was determined at Rs. 3,68,000 after making an addition of Rs. 3,08,000 under section 69 of the Act, on account of unexplained investment. 2.4 On appeals preferred by the assessees against the above assessments, the CIT(A) in the first instance, by his. separate orders dated 22-12-2004, confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeals of the assessees on merits. 2.5 Subsequently, the CIT(A), from a letter dated 29-12-2004 received from the Assessing Officer, having came to know that the assessment order as well as demand notice were served on the asses sees on 31-3-2004, and not on 15-4-2004 as stated by the assessees against appropriate column of Form No. 35, viz. Fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee has some force for the reasons following. 5.2 Before going deeply into the issues concerned on merits, we have to state that while the CIT(A) has passed his orders dated 22-12-2004 on merits too rejecting the contentions of the assessees, he passed the subsequent corrigendum orders dated 25-1-2005 holding that "the appellate orders dated 22-12-2004 should be considered as 'appeal not admitted' and, hence, considered dismissed for statistical purposes." In other words, not only the CIT(A) has rejected the assessees appeals before him on merits, but also by his corrigendum orders held that the earlier appellate orders passed on merits should be considered as appeals not admitted and hence dismissed for statistical purposes, as there was a delay of 14 days in filing those appeals. 5.3 The delay was brought to the notice of the CIT(A) by a communication of the Assessing Officer dated 29-12-2004 pointing out that the assessment order along with DN was served on the assessee on 31-3-2004 and not on 14-4-2004, as stated by the assessee against appropriate column of Form No. 35, viz. Form of Appeal before the Commissioner, and consequently there was a delay of 14 days in the filing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A). What all that has happened, in our view of the matter, still the CIT(A) is not absolved of the violation of principles of natural justice on account of inadequacy of opportunity given. Having made serious allegations against the assessees of having made false claims in Form No. 35 as to the date of service of the assessment order along with DN, and of having obtained the appellate orders by deceit, the CIT(A) should have given adequate opportunity to the assessees to put forth their say, in the face of the letter of the Assessing Officer dated 29-12-2004, which prompted the CIT(A) to draw the above adverse inferences against the assessees. Further, the notice is issued by the CIT(A) under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, which deals with the rectification of mistakes apparent from record. In the instant case, even though in the result, both the kinds of appeals before the CIT(A) have been rejected, the earlier order discussing in detail on merits dismissed the appeals of the assessee, while the latter corrigendum orders of the CIT(A) considered the earlier orders as 'not admitting the appeals' and dismissing the appeals of the assessee for statistical purposes. Thus, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed only if the defects are cured or condoned by such preceding orders. (c) When once an order on merits has been passed by the CIT(A), is it not that the point of limitation is deemed to have been considered and delay, if any, condoned? The reason is that the appeals remain for consideration on merits, only if the defects are cured or condoned and the appeal is held maintainable. 5.5 However, we are not adjudicating these aspects in the aforesaid questions that are emerging in these appeals, which were earlier in our contemplation, as after hearing the parties and going through the record, we find, suffice it to say, that corrigendum orders impugned herein are clearly orders passed in hurry and haste, not having given sufficient opportunity to the assessee. For the reasons already stated, hardly one notice appears to have been issued to the assessees, date of even that notice issued under section 154 has not been furnished in the corrigendum order, much less the date of service of such notice to the assessees. When the date of hearing has been fixed for 24th January, the corrigendum orders have been passed on 25th January itself. Therefore, no more material or information is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
