N.D. Raghavan, Vice President - (1.) THESE are appeals of two assessees belonging to the same group challenging orders dated 22.12.2004 and 25.1.2005 of the CIT(A)-III, Hyderabad, as erroneous. Facts of the cases, issues involved, rival submissions thereon as well as the assessees herein, happening to be almost the same, these proceedings are consolidated together for the sake of convenience by this common order.
(2.) 1 Facts of the cases as gathered from the record are THAT: 2.2 Assessee, Dr. B. Padmaja, who is a medical practitioner by profession, practicing at Karimnagar, has filed her return for the assessment year 2001-02 on 27.3.2002, declaring an income of Rs. 1,05,560. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment by his order under Section 143(3) dated 29.3.2004, on a total income of Rs. 2,59,125, making additions of Rs. 48,565 disallowing 20% of various expenses aggregating to Rs. 2,42,826; and of Rs. 1,05,000 on account of unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act. 2.3 Similarly, assessee, Dr. B. Ldvanya, a dental doctor by profession, filed her return of income for the assessment year 1999-2000 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 29.3.2004, 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 assessees on 31.3.2004, and not on 15.4.2004 as stated by the assessees against appropriate column of Form No. 35, viz. Form of Appeal before the Commissioner, and as such there was delay in the filing of the appeal by the assessees before him, issued a notices under Section 154, proposing to rectify the appellate orders dated 22.12.2004 passed by him. In the absence of any response from the assessees, he passed separate orders dated 25.1.2005, whereby he held that the appeals filed on 14.5.2004 by the assessees were out of time and the same should have been rejected. He accordingly concluded that "Accordingly, the appellate order dated 22.12.2004 should be considered as 'Appeal not Admitted' and, hence considered as dismissed for statistical purposes. 2.6 Aggrieved by the separate orders of the CIT(A) dated 22.12.2004 dismissing the appeals on merits and corrigendum orders dated 25.1.2005 dismissing the appeals for statistical purposes, by not admitting the appeals, assessees preferred separate appeals before us. Earned Counsel for the assessees submitted in common THAT: On merits, the Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in treating Rs. 3,08,000 in the case of Dr. B. Lavanya and Rs. 1,08,000 in the case of Dr. B. Padmaja, as the income under Section 69A of the Act, in spite of clear explanations submitted by the assessees. He also erred in confirming the action initiated under Section 148 in the case of Dr. B. Lavanya. The CIT(A) also erred in the case of Dr. Padmaja in confirming the addition of Rs. 48,565 being disallowance of 20% of various expenses aggregating to Rs. 2,42,826. Petitions for admission of additional evidence in terms of Rule 29 of ITAT Rules are also filed alongwith relevant affidavits in support thereof. 3.2 That apart, insofar as appeals against corrigendum orders of the CIT(A) dated 25.1.2005 are concerned, the CIT(A) erred in holding the appeals as not admitted, without considering the fact that the appropriate appeals were filed before the CIT(A). He has erred in passing the corrigendum order on 25.1.2005, amending the appellate orders dated 22.12.2004.
(3.) ON the other hand, the learned representative for the Revenue, countered, to say in brief, by defending the orders impugned.;