SMT USHA ARORA ,CHANDRAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CHANDRAPUR

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-2, Nagpur dated 08.02.2019 for the Assessment Year 2014-15.

Further, the assessee also filed a Stay Application before us and requested for the stay on outstanding demand when the assessee has already paid a sum of Rs.2,22,212/- out of Rs.5,82,667/-. The outstanding balance demand is Rs.3,60,455/-.

Briefly stated the relevant facts include that the assessee is an individual and a Doctor by profession. The assessee filed the return of income declaring total income of Rs.26,02,050/-. At the end of the assessment, the Assessing Officer computed the short term capital gain of Rs.22,35,195/- and added the same to the total income of the assessee and assessed the total income of the assessee at S.A. No.01/NAG/2019 Rs.39,99,500/-. The CIT(A), relying on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320, passed an ex-parte order and dismissed the appeal of the assessee due to non-appearance of the assessee before the CIT(A). Thus, in the process, huge demand is created.

Aggrieved with the same, assessee not only filed the appeal against the additions but also filed Stay Application for stay of recovery of demand. 5. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment was made by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act on 15.09.2016. However, during the proceedings before the first appellate authority, the assessee could not appear due to communication gap between the office of the CIT(A) and the assessee. The said fact was demonstrated by the assessee before us. Elaborating the above issue and considering the set principle of natural justice, ld. Counsel submitted that the matter should be remanded to the file of the CIT(A) in view of the ex-parte nature of the first appellate proceedings.

On hearing both the sides, we find it is in the interest of justice, that the assessee should be heard once again for adjudicating the issues raised before the CIT(A) on merits in accordance with the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. We find that the assessee has a reasonable cause for non-attendance before the CIT(A). Therefore, as requested by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, the matter is remanded to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to grant the assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the grounds raised