← All Phrases

“opportunity of being heard”

Natural JusticeAudi Alteram PartemAudi Alteram Partem22,508 judgments

The decision most relied on for opportunity of being heard is CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. (38 ITD 320), cited in 2,267 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on opportunity of being heard

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.
38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
2,267
citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another
118 ITR 461 · 1997 · Supreme Court
1,656
citing judgments

Appealing a tax assessment requires more than just filing the appeal; it involves actively pursuing it. The assessee must effectively engage with the appellate process.

Rashmikant Kundalia v. Union of India
54 Taxmann.com 200 · 2015 · High Court
702
citing judgments

Section 234E, levying late fees for delayed filing of TDS statements under section 200(3), is constitutionally valid and constitutes a compensatory fee, not a punitive penalty. Before treating any person as an assessee-in-default, an opportunity of being heard must be provided.

Tin Box Company v. CIT
249 ITR 216 · 2001 · Supreme Court
624
citing judgments

When an issue is remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, the AO must conduct a de novo examination and provide the assessee a full opportunity of being heard. The assessee is bound to comply with the notices issued by the AO.

CIT v. Vikas Polymers
341 ITR 537 · 2012 · High Court
318
citing judgments

An assessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial under Section 263 merely because the Assessing Officer did not record an enquiry and its satisfactory answer in the assessment order, provided such an enquiry was conducted. For revision under Section 263, the Commissioner must also provide the assessee an opportunity of being heard and examine their explanation.

Commissioner of Income Tax Madras v. Chenniyappa Mudiliar
1 SCC 591 · 1985 · Reported
225
citing judgments

The appellate tribunal must render a proper decision on both facts and law, disposing of an appeal on its merits rather than dismissing it solely due to the appellant's absence. This obligation is derived from Section 33(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, and reflects principles of natural justice.

ITO v. M. Pirai Choodi
334 ITR 262 · 2011 · Supreme Court
211
citing judgments

If an assessee was denied an adequate opportunity of being heard, including the right to cross-examine a witness, the assessment should be set aside and restored for fresh adjudication after affording due opportunity, even if the assessee failed to appear at an appellate stage. The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, should ensure such matters are re-adjudicated.

Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT
119 ITR 996 · 1979 · Supreme Court
205
citing judgments

An assessment cannot be reopened under Section 147/148 based on a mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer on material already considered during the original assessment, clarifying the scope of 'escaped assessment'.

Judgments citing opportunity of being heard

Rajnish Chamanlal Bharti, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(2)(3)/30(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5826/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5826/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10) Shri Rajnish C. Bharti बिधम/ Ito-24(2)(3)/30(2)(3) 506B, Rajendra Vihar Bkc, Bandra, Mumbai. Vs. Evershine Nagar, Malad West, Mumbai-400064. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpb6150F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri C. V. Jain Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22 /11/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax-41, Mumbai Dated 03.08.2016 For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: - “1. On The Facts, In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals Ld Cit (A)] Has Erred In Upholding The Impugned Assessment Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (Ld. A.0) Without Having Any Lawful Jurisdiction As- A. There Were No Cogent Reasons To Believe That The Income Had Escaped Assessment & Accordingly The Provisions Of Section 147 & 148 Were Not Applicable To The Case

For Appellant: Shri C. V. JainFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

purchases made from alleged bogus parties without considering the fact that learned A.O had made the disallowance without giving the appellant any opportunity of being heard and without bringing on record any adverse evidence. The Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in upholding the disallowance

Mr. Deepu Bangalore Prasannakumar, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(4), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1007/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Koushik K.M, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 144

documents available with the assessee to substantiate his claim as per law. Needless to say that the assessee shall be given three effective opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to co-operate with the AO for early disposal of the case. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal raised

M/S. Praxair India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 199/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Senior A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92C

circumstances of the case and in law, the action of the learned AO of making reference to the learned TPO without giving an opportunity of being heard, is in violation' of the provisions of section 92CA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and needs to-be quashed. The Appellant submits

M/S Praxair India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 3336/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Senior A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92C

circumstances of the case and in law, the action of the learned AO of making reference to the learned TPO without giving an opportunity of being heard, is in violation' of the provisions of section 92CA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and needs to-be quashed. The Appellant submits

The Thanjavur District Co Op Milk Producers Union Limited, Thanjavur vs. ACIT, Circle2(1), Trichy

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Allowed

ITA 404/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.404/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Thanjavur District Co Op The Principal Milk Producers Union Limited, Vs Commissioner Of Income No.1, Nanjikottai Road, Tax-1, Madurai. Thanjavur – 613006. Pan: Aaaat 0224 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By K.Meenakshisundaram - Itp Revenue By Shri M.Rajan – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 23/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Appellant Assessee Against The Order U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Act) Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Madurai-1, Dated 26/03/2022 For A.Y. 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Order Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 26/3/2022 Received By The Appellant On 1/4/2022 Is Objected To On The Following Grounds Of Appeal. 1. The Learned Principal Commissioner Madurai Erred In Setting Aside The Valid Order Passed By The Assisstant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-2(1) Trichy Dated 5/11/2019 For The Assessment Year 2017- 2018 Under Section 263 On Mere Assumptions & Presumptions That The Order Had Been Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. 2. The Learned Principal Commissioner Misdirected Himself That The Valid Order Passed By The Assisstant Commissioner Was Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue Simply For The Reason That The

Section 263Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(e)

Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances

J.Kothandaraman, Chennai vs. DCIT Company Circle V(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1438/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1438/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 J Kothandaraman, The Deputy Commissioner 24/5, Balaji Colony, Main Vs Of Income Tax, Company Road, Velachery, Circle V(2), Chennai. Chennai – 600042. Pan : Aiipr 6541 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Ms.N.V.Lakshmi – Adv. Revenue By Shri P.Sajit Kumar – Jcit Date Of Hearing 25/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Chennai Dated 19.02.2019 Emanating From The Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2013 Passed By The Dcit, Circle-V(2), Chennai Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2010-11. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. The Order Of The Cit(A) Is Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Law & The Principles Of Equity & Nature Justice.

Section 143(3)Section 69

however, erred in sustaining the additions made by the assessing officer in the remand proceedings without giving the appellant an opportunity of being heard. 5. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant had received Rs.9,58,500 as hand loans form various parties and had produced confirmation letters

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 13(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Sun Metallics & Alloys Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, ITA No. 2628/Mum/2018 for A

ITA 2629/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. K.Shivaram, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Satyapal Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 68

2629/Mum/2018, C.O. 95/Mum/2019 M/s. Sun Metallics & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. decide as per observation made hereinbefore by providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 25. In the result, ITA No. 2628/Mum/2018 for A.Y. 2012-13 filed by the Revenue is dismissed and CO-95/M/2019 for A.Y 2012-13 filed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 13(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Sun Metallics & Alloys Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, ITA No. 2628/Mum/2018 for A

ITA 2628/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. K.Shivaram, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Satyapal Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 68

2629/Mum/2018, C.O. 95/Mum/2019 M/s. Sun Metallics & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. decide as per observation made hereinbefore by providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 25. In the result, ITA No. 2628/Mum/2018 for A.Y. 2012-13 filed by the Revenue is dismissed and CO-95/M/2019 for A.Y 2012-13 filed

M/S. Embassy Property Developments Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Central), Bangalore

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

ITA 445/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Nov 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 17Section 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 37

erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify ... Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it/s prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making an enquiry pass an order modifying the assessment made by the Assessing Officer or cancelling the assessment and directing fresh

M/S Inteva Products India Automotive Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 272/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 43ASection 92CSection 92D

void order 10.the learned AO has breached principles of natural justice by not issuing a show cause notice to give an opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before passing the draft assessment order Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A(I) of the Act Il.erred in initiating the penalty ... provide necessary documents for substantiating his case and further directed not to seek unnecessary adjournments and the AO is directed to provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue as per law. Accordingly ground No. 05 is allowed. IT(TP)A No.272/Bang/2022 Page

Magan Vadhaji Prajapati, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer WD 19(2) (3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1215/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1215/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) Magan Vadhaji Prajapati बिधम/ Ito Ward-19(2)(3) Room No.15, 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir Building, Vs. 39/41, Kamal Niwas 1St & 2Nd Floor, Nana Bhandari Street, Mumbai- Chowk, Bhatia Hospital 400004. Lane, Javji Dadaji Marg, Grant Road West, Mumbai-400007. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Anwpp7146B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Bharat Kumar Revenue By: Shri V. K. Chaturvedi (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/11/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Nfac), Delhi Dated 22.03.2022 For Ay. 2011-12. The Ground Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Is As Under: - 2. “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Considering The Facts Whereas Some Suppliers Is Not Belonging To Assessee & Confirm The Addition Made By Ao. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Addition Rs.17,38,432/- Which Was 12.5% Of Alleged Bogus Purchases.”

For Appellant: Shri Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Shri V. K. Chaturvedi (Sr. AR)
Section 133Section 133(6)

authority, that reads thus : "We will straightway agree with the assessee's submission that the ITO had not given to the assessee proper opportunity of being heard." That the assessee could have placed evidence before the first appellate authority or before the Tribunal is really of no consequence ... aside the order of assessment and remand the matter to the assessing authority for fresh assessment after giving to the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard. 2. Two questions were placed before the High Court, of which the second question is not pressed. The first question reads thus : Whether

DCIT, CC 4(3), Central Range-4, Mumbai vs. Kukreja Development Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5766/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Harsh M. KapadiaFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 43(1)Section 68

details in support of its claim in respect of this issue. Needless to mention that no order shall be passed without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. As a result, ground No. 2 raised in Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 17. In the result

Sabara Impex Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is fully dismissed

ITA 3267/MUM/2013[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2022AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Nilu Jaggi, Sr.DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 80H

penalty under section 271 (1) (c) of the I.T. Act 1961, at Rs 1, 90, 00,000/- without giving an adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard inasmuch as, neither the category of infringement based on which the penalty has been levied was communicated nor a valid notice of hearing

M/S. Mukka Protenis Limited, Mangaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 433/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Nov 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate
Section 115BSection 143Section 153DSection 263Section 69C

erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue , he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify ... uphold the order of Ld.PCIT. We direct the Page 19 Ld.AO to carry out necessary verification in accordance with law by granting proper opportunity of being heard to assessee. Accordingly, the above grounds raised by the assessee stands dismissed. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Indian Co-Op Network for Women Ltd, Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 104/CHNY/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Adivarahan, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Maruthu Pandian, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

section 263 of the Act. Therefore, he set aside the re-assessment order and directed the AO to reframe the assessment after allowing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld.AR for the assessee stated that the issue in reassessment

M/S. Basf Catalysts India Pvt. Ltd., Kanchipuram vs. DCIT, International Taxation-1(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 721/CHNY/2020[2019-20 (April, 2018-September, 2018)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 720 & 721/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri. J. Saravanan, Advocate for Shri. N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 195(2)

documents, we are inclined to restore the issues raised in the aforesaid grounds to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. While doing so, the Assessing Officer must consider the ratio laid down in the decisions to be cited before

M/S. Basf Catalysts India Pvt. Ltd., Kanchipuram vs. DCIT, International Taxation-1(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 720/CHNY/2020[2018-19 (October, 2017 to March, 2018)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 720 & 721/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri. J. Saravanan, Advocate for Shri. N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 195(2)

documents, we are inclined to restore the issues raised in the aforesaid grounds to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. While doing so, the Assessing Officer must consider the ratio laid down in the decisions to be cited before

Sekar Devi, Madurai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward-2(1), Madurai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1592/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1591 & 1592/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 Smt. Sekar Devi, The Income Tax Officer, 16-C/2, Nadar Vidyasala Street, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 2(1), South Veli Street, Madurai. Madurai – 1. Pan: Aempd 9173M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P.M. Senthil Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16.11.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: These Appeals By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Different Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Madurai In Ita No.0104/2016-17 & 0076/2015-16 Both Dated 05.04.2019. The Assessments Were Framed By The Ito, Non-Corporate Ward 2(1), Madurai For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2009-10 U/S.144 R.W.S 147 & U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Orders Dated 13.06.2016 & 30.03.2015. 2. The Common Issue In Both The Appeals Of The Assessee Is That The Lower Authorities I.E., The Cit(A) As Well As The Ao Passed Order Without Assigning Any Proper Reasons & Justification & The Ao Framed Assessment Ex-Parte U/S.144 Of The Act In Assessment Year 2008-09 & The Cit(A) In Both The Years Has Dismissed The Appeals Of Assessee Without Deliberating On The Merits Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.M. Senthil Kumar, JCIT
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

year 2008- 09 is as regards to the addition of opening capital of Rs.30,24,865/- but the AO has not provided reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and framed ex-parte assessment order u/s.144 of the Act and the relevant findings given by AO in assessment year ... rejected. 2.3 As regards to the addition of Rs.8,00,000/- being receivables, the CIT(A) dismissed the issue without providing opportunity of being heard as claimed by ld.counsel for the assessee are reproduced in para 13 of the CIT(A)’s order, which reads as under:- “13. I have

Sekar Devi, Madurai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward-2(1), Madurai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1591/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1591 & 1592/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 Smt. Sekar Devi, The Income Tax Officer, 16-C/2, Nadar Vidyasala Street, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 2(1), South Veli Street, Madurai. Madurai – 1. Pan: Aempd 9173M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P.M. Senthil Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16.11.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: These Appeals By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Different Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Madurai In Ita No.0104/2016-17 & 0076/2015-16 Both Dated 05.04.2019. The Assessments Were Framed By The Ito, Non-Corporate Ward 2(1), Madurai For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2009-10 U/S.144 R.W.S 147 & U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Orders Dated 13.06.2016 & 30.03.2015. 2. The Common Issue In Both The Appeals Of The Assessee Is That The Lower Authorities I.E., The Cit(A) As Well As The Ao Passed Order Without Assigning Any Proper Reasons & Justification & The Ao Framed Assessment Ex-Parte U/S.144 Of The Act In Assessment Year 2008-09 & The Cit(A) In Both The Years Has Dismissed The Appeals Of Assessee Without Deliberating On The Merits Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.M. Senthil Kumar, JCIT
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

year 2008- 09 is as regards to the addition of opening capital of Rs.30,24,865/- but the AO has not provided reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and framed ex-parte assessment order u/s.144 of the Act and the relevant findings given by AO in assessment year ... rejected. 2.3 As regards to the addition of Rs.8,00,000/- being receivables, the CIT(A) dismissed the issue without providing opportunity of being heard as claimed by ld.counsel for the assessee are reproduced in para 13 of the CIT(A)’s order, which reads as under:- “13. I have

United Arab Shipping Company Ltd.(Formerly Known As United Arab Shipping Company (S.A.G)), Mumbai vs. DCIT (It)- 4(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2254/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2022AY 2018-2019
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234DSection 270ASection 90(2)

same to the assessee. Needless to say, the AO shall in the course of the set-aside proceedings afford a sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee for substantiating its aforesaid claim. The ground of appeal number 8 is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations