K.R. VIJAYA RAGHAVA REDDY (HUF),BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the course of hearing, it was submitted by learned AR of the assessee that it is true that several dates were fixed by the learned CIT(A) for hearing and the assessee could not make any effective compliance before him. She submitted that even in that situation, learned CIT(A) should have decided the issue on merit instead of dismissing the appeal of the assessee in limine by following the Tribunal order rendered int eh case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India Ltd., reported in 38 ITD 320. She submitted that under these facts and in the interest of justice, the matter should be restored back to the file of CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. She submitted that she gives an undertaking that if the matter is restored back to the CIT(A), proper compliance will be made before CIT(A). Learned DR of the Revenue supported the order of CIT(A).

We have considered the rival submissions. We find that as per the Assessment Order, it is noted by the AO in para 3.1 that the assessee had filed a letter dated 30.11.2016 contents of which are reproduced by the AO in that para of the Assessment Order in which it has been submitted by the assessee before the AO that the assessee has completed the construction of the building in May 2014 itself and the assessee had utilized the entire sale proceeds for