“opportunity of being heard”

Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, Hoshiarpur vs. Income Tax Officer TDS-1`, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeals filed are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

appeal is condoned and the Ld. CIT(A) is directed to hear and adjudicate the matter on merits afresh after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assesse and considering the material evidence on record by passing a speaking order. The appellant shall cooperate in fresh proceedings before

Idara Auqaf Aslamia Trust, Jammu & Kasahmir vs. Income Tax Officer Ward Anantnag, Jammu and Kashmir

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Learned CIT(A), Jammu, both are against the facts of the case and are untenable under the law. 2. That no reasonable opportunity of being heard was allowed by the A.O. before passing the order. As such, the assessment order is bad in law and is liable to be cancelled

Maddimisetti Srinivasu, Tanuku vs. The Asst . Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Rajahmundary

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.96/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Maddimsetti Srinivasu Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.1-77, Peddintlamma Street Income Tax Tanuku Mandal Circle-1 Komaravaram Rajahmundry [Pan : Ctxpm3066Q]

reference to the issue of sale of plots during the period relevant to the A.Y.2017-18. The Ld.PCIT directed the AO to afford an opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing the consequential order. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following ... setting aside the assessment to the file of the AO for verification of the incidence of capital gains and business income after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, requested to uphold the order of the Ld.PCIT and dismiss the appeal of the assessee. 7. We have heard

Shri Praful Gautambhai Kothari, Rajkot vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 163/Rjt/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012

extent of the issues discussed supra, considering the observation and findings given above, making necessary interpretations and inquires and after allowing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The AO shall verify the issues as discussed above and pass a reasoned order accordingly. 5. Being aggrieved by the order ... section 263 of the Act 1961. Therefore, by invocation of Explanation in the order without confronting the assessee and giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee is not appropriate and sustainable in law. 6 Thus, the Tribunal has considered in detail the aspect of revisional power

Shri Nishant Kumar Tiwari, Dewas vs. The ITO -1, Dewas

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

outcome of the ex parte order. In order to prevent the miscarriage of justice, we find that the assessee should be given further opportunity of being heard by the authorities below. In that view of the matter, we dispose of this appeal by remitting the issue to the file ... pass a reasoned order afresh upon giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and upon taking into consideration the evidence on record or any other evidence which the assessee may choose to file at the time of hearing of the matter. ITA No. 168/Ind/2022 [Shri Nishant Kumar Tiwari

Kendrapara Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Kendrapada vs. Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax, Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.163/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Kendrapara Urban Co-Operative Vs Pr.Cit, Cuttack Bank Ltd., College Square, Tinimuhani, Kendrapara-754211 Pan No. :Aaatk 8347 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.C.Sethi, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/01/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Pr.Cit, Cuttack, Dated 24.03.2020, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Com/F/17/2019-20/1026884702(1) For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 8 Days. The Assessee Through Its Secretary Has Filed An Application Dated 13.07.2020 Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons For Condonation Of Delay, To Which Ld. Cit-Dr Did Not Object. In View Of The Above, Delay Of 8 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Is Condoned & The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Heard Finally. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Original Assessment In The Case Of The Assessee Was Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 20.11.2017. It Was The Submission That The Assessment Was A Limited Scrutiny

order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, then, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such enquiry, he deems necessary, pass such order thereon, as the circumstances of the case

Shri Rajesh Sharma, Bhopal vs. PCIT -1 Bhopal, Bhopal

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Rajesh Sharma Pr. Cit-1 बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Ampps4972A Assessee By None Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2023

aside the order u/s 143(3) for de novo assessment (on various improper and vague basis and also without providing the appellant reasonable opportunity of being heard). 2. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of assessee. On perusal of case file, we find that the case involves

Prashant R. Mamlatdarna, Bharuch vs. ITO-Ward-1(5), Bharuch

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.242/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Physical Court Hearing) Prashant R Mamlatdarna Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), 6, Pritam Society No.1 Kasak, 1St Floor, Harkunj Building, Vs. Bharuch-392001 Above Bank Of Baroda, Station Road, Bharuch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adepm 4216 H (Appellant ) (Respondent)

note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Therefore, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit

Nilesh Babubhai Kachhadiya, Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Jayeshbhai Rasikbhai Rajani, A.C.I.T., 33, Sharda Vihar Society, Near Central Circle-1, Vs. Dharam Nagr, A.K. Road, Surat. Surat-395006. Pan No. Akwpr 3571 M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Nilesh Babubhai Kachhadiya, A.C.I.T., 94, Paramhans Society, B/S. Samast Central Circle-1, Vs. Patidar Wadi, Ambatalavadi, Surat. Katargam, Surat-395004. Pan No. Aqupk 7241 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in passing the impugned appellate order on an ex- parte basis, without providing the appellant a proper opportunity of being heard and also without properly appreciating the facts and merits of the case as were duly discussed in the memorandum of appeal. Therefore

Jayeshbhai Rasikbhai Rajani, Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Jayeshbhai Rasikbhai Rajani, A.C.I.T., 33, Sharda Vihar Society, Near Central Circle-1, Vs. Dharam Nagr, A.K. Road, Surat. Surat-395006. Pan No. Akwpr 3571 M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Nilesh Babubhai Kachhadiya, A.C.I.T., 94, Paramhans Society, B/S. Samast Central Circle-1, Vs. Patidar Wadi, Ambatalavadi, Surat. Katargam, Surat-395004. Pan No. Aqupk 7241 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in passing the impugned appellate order on an ex- parte basis, without providing the appellant a proper opportunity of being heard and also without properly appreciating the facts and merits of the case as were duly discussed in the memorandum of appeal. Therefore

Jairam Gulumal Diyalani, Bharuch vs. ITO, Ward1(5), Bharuch

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.171/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Jairam Gulumal Diyalani Income Tax Officer, M/S Tulsi Saree, Main Bazar, Ward-1(5), Bharuch Vs. Jambusar, Dist. Bharuch- 392150 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acgpd 8463 L (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Mehul K Patel, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-D.R सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17/01/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/01/2023 आदेश / Order Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Correctness Of The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Vadodara (In Short “Ld. Pcit”] Dated 07.12.2018, Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1.0 The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Baroda, Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Holding That The Assessment Order Dated 29-12-2016 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & Thereby Erred In Invoking The Provisions Of Section 263 Of The I T Act. 2.0 The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Baroda Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Directing The Assessing Officer To Make Additions Of Rs.9,00,000/- On Account Of Total Sums Received From Investment Made In Property Situated At Mumbai. 2.1 The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Baroda Ought To Have Appreciated That The Overall Additions On Account Of The Total Amount Received Have Already Been Made In One Year Or The Other & That There Is No Loss Of Revenue.

total income of the assessee for A.Y.2014-15. 8. In respect of the above report of the Assessing Officer, the assessee was given an opportunity of being heard, vide letter dated 27.09.2018. In response to the same, assessee furnished written submission, on 10.10.2018. Relevant portion of the same is reproduced here

Sherda Polyster Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), Surat

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.763/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Sherda Polyster Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(1)(2), C/O Dk Jhanwar & Associates, Surat. 705, Morya Bluemoon, Near Monginis Cake Factory, Opp. City Mall, Link Road, Andheri West, Mumbai-400053. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcs3803P

learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts for confirming the additions made by the AO without affording an effective opportunity of being heard and orders have been passed against to the principles of natural justice by the authorities below. (6) The appellant craves leave

M/S. Mega Aims, Bharuch vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Bharuch

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.24/Srt/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) M/S Mega Aims Assistant Commissioner Of B-1, Gokuldham Complex, Income-Tax, Circle-1, Bharuch Vs. Dahej Bypass Road, Bharuch- 392001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqfm 1615 F (Appellant ) (Respondent)

note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Therefore, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit

Pacific Academy of Higher Education and Research Society, Udaipur vs. The Pr. CIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

granted to the Education Society by The Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur, as per order dated 10th October 2002, without providing adequate opportunity of being heard and further failed to appreciate that the cancellation so made is contrary to the law laid down under section 12AA(3) and 12AA ... fact and circumstances of the case as well as in law the order so passed without providing of reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard which is against the principle of natural justice and while withdrawing the registration the authority ignored the request letter dated 7 December 2019, which

Global Health Research and Management Institute, Udaipur vs. Pr. CIT(Central), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, transfer any case from ... Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner from whose jurisdiction the case is to be transferred may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, pass the order; (b) where

Mahadevia Charitable Trust, Ahmedabad vs. Pr. CIT(Central), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, transfer any case from ... Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner from whose jurisdiction the case is to be transferred may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, pass the order; (b) where