ITAT Mumbai Judgments — September 2025

WORTHWHILE FUTURE FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs ITO EXEM. WARD 2(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 4189/MUM/2025[2022-2023]Status: Disposed4 Sept 2025AY 2022-2023Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the condonation of delay is not automatic and requires genuine and reasonable causes supported by cogent evidence. The assessee's explanation was contradicted by one consultant and not substantiated by the other, thus the delay could not be condoned.

WORTHWHILE FUTURE FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD 2(4), MUMBAI

ITA 4190/MUM/2025[2022-2023]Status: Disposed4 Sept 2025AY 2022-2023Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the condonation of delay is not automatic and requires genuine and reasonable causes supported by cogent evidence. The assessee's explanation was contradicted by one consultant and not substantiated by the other, thus the delay could not be condoned.

ANKIT KUMAR JAIN,MUMBAI vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 3577/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed4 Sept 2025AY 2021-22Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case. The impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits.

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1) , MUMBAI vs RAMRAO ADIK EDUC SOCIETY, MUMBAI

ITA 2270/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed4 Sept 2025AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13, the assessments under section 153C were invalid as these years were outside the six-year period preceding the relevant assessment year of the search. For AY 2017-18, the assessment under section 143(3) was also considered not in line with the provisions. Regarding the rejection of books of accounts, the Tribunal followed a coordinate bench decision in the case of Padmashree D Y Patil University, holding that since there was no evidence to show the assessee collected capitation fees, the basis for rejecting the books failed. Therefore, the books of accounts should be accepted. On the issue of depreciation, the Tribunal noted that the restriction on claiming depreciation on assets whose value was allowed as application of income was introduced only from AY 2015-16. Accordingly, depreciation on the opening balance of assets was directed to be allowed for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15. For other years, the issue was remitted to the AO for verification, allowing depreciation only on assets whose value was not allowed as application of income. The assessee's appeals for AYs 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2017-18 were allowed, and the revenue's appeals for these years were dismissed. Appeals for AYs 2013-14 to 2016-17 were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

ANKIT KUMAR JAIN,MUMBAI vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 3576/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed4 Sept 2025AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case. The impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits.

RANJANA SANJAY TIWARI ,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER -(3), PALGHAR

ITA 4239/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed4 Sept 2025AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee demonstrated a net cash inflow of INR 23,26,016 from her trading activity and provided confirmations for livestock sales. It ruled that hypothecation of livestock (which was repaid) does not bar its sale, especially when the assets lack specific identity. As the Revenue failed to present material to doubt the assessee's creditworthiness, the Tribunal deleted the addition upheld by the CIT(A).

RAMRAO ADIK EDUCATION SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1515/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed4 Sept 2025AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for AYs 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2017-18, the assessments under Section 153C were unsustainable. The Tribunal found that AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13 were outside the six-year block preceding the search year, and the assessment for AY 2017-18 was incorrectly made under Section 143(3) instead of Section 153C. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's contention regarding the satisfaction note. Regarding the rejection of books of accounts, the Tribunal followed a coordinate bench decision in the case of Padmashree D Y Patil University, holding that since capitation fees could not be added as unexplained under Section 68, the foundation for rejecting the books failed. Therefore, the books of accounts were to be accepted. On the issue of depreciation, the Tribunal noted that the restriction on claiming depreciation on assets whose value was allowed as application of income was introduced only from AY 2015-16. Accordingly, depreciation was allowed on the opening value of assets for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15. For other years, the issue was remitted to the AO for verification and allowance of depreciation only on assets whose value was not allowed as application of income. The revenue's ground on this issue was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4630/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2025AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals as not maintainable, following a coordinate bench's decision. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, with a direction to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

GUPTA BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS ,MUMBAI vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI

ITA 4361/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2025AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was not issued on March 31, 2021, as it was served on April 1, 2021. Therefore, the AO failed to follow the mandatory procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in Ashish Aggarwal, making the notice time-barred.

STAR CHEMICALS BOMBAY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4387/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2025AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO's disallowance under Section 14A r.w.r. 8D was not justified without proper satisfaction and restoring the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. The adjustment to book profits under Section 115JB was also held incorrect.

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs DCIT 2 3 1, MUMBAI

ITA 4628/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2025AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals as not maintainable, following a coordinate bench's decision. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, with a direction to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs GATEWAY DISTRIPARKS LIMITED, ANDHRA PRADESH

ITA 3816/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2025AY 2020-21Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(4) for income from CFS. It followed the consistent view of the Coordinate Bench and High Court decisions, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.

M/S. GATEWAY DISTRIPARKS LTD,MUMBAI vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3300/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2025AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without considering the reasons for delay, especially when substantial justice and technical considerations were pitted against each other. The Tribunal also ruled on merits regarding disallowance under Section 14A and adjustment to book profits.

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4632/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2025AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals as not maintainable, following a coordinate bench's decision. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, with a direction to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

STAR CHEMICALS BOMBAY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4388/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2025AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO's disallowance under Section 14A r.w.r. 8D was not justified without proper satisfaction and restoring the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. The adjustment to book profits under Section 115JB was also held incorrect.

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4629/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2025AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals as not maintainable, following a coordinate bench's decision. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, with a direction to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4633/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2025AY 2021-22Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals as not maintainable, following a coordinate bench's decision. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, with a direction to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

ENTERTAINMENT WORLD DEVELOPERS AMRISTAR PVT LTD,INDIABULL CENTRE vs ACIT6(2)(2) MUMBAI, AAKAR BHAWAN MUMBAI

ITA 3496/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2025AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO's premise of a revaluation loss was based on a misinterpretation of the audited accounts. The figure of ₹2,34,04,792/- represented the sale value of land, not a revaluation loss, and no such loss was booked by the assessee in its profit and loss account. Consequently, the addition was deleted.

SAPANA RAJENDRA KUMAR MARATHE ,MUMBAI vs ITO WARD 23(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4363/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2025AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 dated 16.07.2022 for AY 2015-16 was barred by limitation as it was issued beyond the six-year period prescribed under the un-amended provisions of Section 149.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 6(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs ENTERTAINMENT WORLD DEVELOPERS AMRITSAR PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 3563/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2025AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the disputed amount of ₹1,81,76,852 was below the monetary threshold prescribed by the CBDT for filing departmental appeals. Regarding the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal found that the addition of ₹2,34,04,792 was based on a misappreciation of the audited accounts and evidence. The audited Note 11 on changes in inventories showed a net change in inventories that improved the profit and loss account, not a loss on revaluation. Furthermore, the ledger account for 'Sale of Land' clearly showed a credit entry of ₹2,34,04,792 for actual land sale, which was a revenue credit, not a revaluation debit. The Tribunal emphasized that taxability follows what is recognized in audited accounts and claimed in the computation. An internal estimate not translated into a P&L debit cannot be added back. Therefore, the disallowance was deleted. The other grounds of the assessee's appeal were not pressed and were dismissed.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs GATEWAY DISTRIPARKS LIMITED, ANDHRA PRADESH

ITA 3815/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2025AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(4) for income from CFS. It followed the consistent view of the Coordinate Bench and High Court decisions, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.

SUDHIR APPUKUTTAN PANIKASSERY ,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE 3, KALYAN

ITA 3558/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2025AY 2022-23Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the interest under Section 234B cannot be levied beyond the date the tax was paid. However, the determination of the payment of Rs. 1,79,14,730/- as per Section 140B(1) by the CPC was found to be correct.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs MGN AGRO PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 3759/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2025AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s finding that the addition of Rs. 22,00,00,000/- made under Section 69A was unwarranted. The primary reasoning was that the addition was based solely on the statement of Mr. L.T. Hotwani recorded under Section 132(4), which was later retracted. The Tribunal emphasized that in the absence of any corroborative evidence, such as material seized during the search or post-search inquiries, a retracted statement alone cannot be the sole basis for making an addition under Section 69A. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had rightly observed that the pre-requisite conditions for invoking Section 69A were not met, as the assessee was not found to be the owner of unexplained money, bullion, etc., not recorded in books. Furthermore, the Tribunal agreed that if cash of Rs. 22 crores was received, there should have been some evidence of expenditure or investment, which was lacking. The Tribunal also highlighted that the CIT(A) had distinguished the case of CIT v. Hotel Meriya relied upon by the AO, stating that in the present case, there was no corroborative evidence found during the search. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was justified.

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4631/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2025AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals as not maintainable, following a coordinate bench's decision. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, with a direction to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

RATAN RAJMAL MEHTA ,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 23(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4130/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2025AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the hardship allowance received by the assessee is a capital receipt and not taxable. Since the income was not taxable, levying a penalty for under-reporting is not justified and would cause undue hardship.

SHREE SALASAR INVESTMENTS LIMITED,NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 3(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3486/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2025AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the matter requires limited verification regarding investments pertaining to the immediately preceding assessment year. The deletion already made by the CIT(A) was upheld, and the AO was directed to verify the transactions.

SHRI VACHASPATI EDUCATIONAL TRUST,THANE vs CIT (EXEMPTIONS), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 1539/MUM/2025[2025-26]Status: Disposed2 Sept 2025AY 2025-26Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While acknowledging that queries from the CIT(E) were only partly complied with, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision, directing the assessee to provide all necessary documents and affording them a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(IT)-2(1)-2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs DELOITTE TOUCHE TOHMATSU INDIA LLP, MUMBAI

ITA 1713/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed2 Sept 2025AY 2020-21Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the payments made were not in the nature of royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA. Consequently, the assessee was not required to deduct TDS. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decision of a Coordinate Bench in similar cases.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(IT)-2(1)-2 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs DELOITTE TOUCHE TOHMATSU INDIA LLP, MUMBAI

ITA 1711/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed2 Sept 2025AY 2020-21Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the payments made were not in the nature of royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA. Consequently, the assessee was not required to deduct TDS. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decision of a Coordinate Bench in similar cases.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(IT)-2(1)-2 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs DELOITTE TOUCHE TOHMATSU INDIA LLP, MUMBAI

ITA 1714/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed2 Sept 2025AY 2020-21Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the payments made were not in the nature of royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA. Consequently, the assessee was not required to deduct TDS. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decision of a Coordinate Bench in similar cases.

INCOME TAX OFFICER-27(3)(1) MUMBAI, VASHI vs SACHIN VELJI SHAH, MUMBAI

ITA 1938/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed2 Sept 2025AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the sale consideration of shares could not be treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 as the transactions were conducted through banking channels and supported by documentary evidence. The Tribunal also deleted the addition for commission expenses.

DR HUKAMCHAND BHARILL FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, MUMBAI

ITA 4636/MUM/2025[2025-26]Status: Disposed2 Sept 2025AY 2025-26Partly Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's activities were not in dispute and that the trust had rectified its object clause, which was the sole basis for rejection. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

JITENDRA SUNITA EDUCATION SOCIETY,THANE vs CIT (EXEMPTIONS), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 1504/MUM/2025[2025-26]Status: Disposed2 Sept 2025AY 2025-26Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that if one more opportunity is given, the assessee would comply with the queries. Therefore, the issue was restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh decision after affording an opportunity of being heard.

ACIT 27(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs GAMMON NEELKANTH REALTY CORPORATION, MUMBAI

ITA 1896/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: Disposed2 Sept 2025AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the AO's estimation of profit was ad-hoc and lacked a valid basis. The Tribunal noted that the cost incurred was in excess of advances, and the project was likely to result in a loss, aligning with the assessee's accounting treatment.

PANKAJ ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs DY. / ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 41(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 4365/MUM/2025[2014-015]Status: Disposed2 Sept 2025AY 2014-015Partly Allowed

The Tribunal decided on the issues as follows: Issue 1 & 2 (Classification of Income and Expenses): The Tribunal found that the income from providing functional infrastructure and other facilities was inextricably connected to the leasing of the premises. The lower authorities correctly observed that the agreement for facilities, despite being separate, was an arrangement for leasing the property with facilities. These facilities were in the nature of finishing the bare property to make it usable as a call centre. Therefore, the income was rightly taxed under the head 'Income from House Property'. Consequently, the expenses claimed under 'Business and Profession' were disallowed, though a standard deduction of 30% was allowed. Issue 3 (Municipal Taxes): Not explicitly decided in the provided text, but impliedly disallowed as part of the overall disallowance of expenses related to house property income. Issue 4 (Interest Deduction): Not explicitly decided in the provided text. Issue 5 (Insurance Premium): Not explicitly decided in the provided text. Issue 6 (TDS on Interest): The Tribunal restored this issue to the jurisdictional AO for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to make necessary compliance with statutory requirements regarding TDS on interest paid to M/s. Bajaj Finance Ltd. The impugned order on this issue was set aside for statistical purposes. Issue 7 (Rent to Partner Firm): The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that only bare shell properties can be compared. It restored the issue to the jurisdictional AO for fresh examination of rent agreements and other details to determine if the properties are of similar nature (bare shell). If found similar, the rent charged in the comparable scenario should be considered for computing the annual let-out value. The impugned order on this issue was set aside for statistical purposes. Operative Directions: Issue 6 and Issue 7 were allowed for statistical purposes, with directions for de novo adjudication by the AO. The classification of income under 'House Property' for issues 1 and 2 was upheld.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(IT)-2(1)-2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs DELOITTE TOUCHE TOHMATSU INDIA LLP, MUMBAI

ITA 1712/MUM/2025[2020]Status: Disposed2 Sept 2025Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the payments made were not in the nature of royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA. Consequently, the assessee was not required to deduct TDS. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decision of a Coordinate Bench in similar cases.

ACIT-27(1), MUMBAI vs GAMMON NEELKANTH REALTY CORPORATION, MUMBAI

ITA 1897/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: Disposed2 Sept 2025AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the AO's estimation of profit was ad-hoc and lacked a valid basis. The Tribunal noted that the cost incurred was in excess of advances, and the project was likely to result in a loss, aligning with the assessee's accounting treatment.

M/S. DEEPAK PURSHOTTAM SHAH (HUF),MUMBAI vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, THANE

ITA 5593/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: Disposed1 Sept 2025AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under Section 153C were invalid due to the absence of a valid and specific satisfaction note from the Assessing Officer. The additions made were based on documents not clearly linked to the relevant assessment years or not mentioned in the satisfaction note.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs GM MODULAR PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 2942/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed1 Sept 2025AY 2019-20Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the loan transaction had been found to be genuine in a previous appeal for AY 2016-17, which order was confirmed by the Tribunal and had attained finality. Therefore, the disallowance of interest could not be sustained. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

M/S. DEEPAK PURSHOTTAM SHAH ,MUMBAI vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, THANE

ITA 5591/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: Disposed1 Sept 2025AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under Section 153C were invalid due to the absence of a valid and specific satisfaction note from the Assessing Officer. The additions made were based on documents not clearly linked to the relevant assessment years or not mentioned in the satisfaction note.

MAMTA PATHAK,THANE vs ITO WARD 1(2) THANE, THANE

ITA 3201/MUM/2025[2012-2013]Status: Disposed1 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013Partly Allowed

The Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for deciding the appeal afresh on merits, providing one more opportunity to the assessee to represent their case.