“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

G.N. Agarwal Charitable Trust, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata

In the result, both appeals of assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 2445/KOL/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jan 2026

For Respondent: Shri Satyajit Mandal, CIT-DR

Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

filed by the assessee trust for registration u/s.12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act and approval u/s.80G of the Act without affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It was the submission that the matter may be restored to the file of Id. CIT(E) to decide ... appeals appeal are restored to the file of the Id. CIT(E) for readjudication the issues afresh after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. 5. In the result, both appeals of assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 01/01/2026

Syntel Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 11(2)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 3 & 4 raised by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6863/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 234CSection 37

facts by passing the order without considering the adjournment request duly filed by the Appellant, thereby not granting the Appellant an adequate opportunity of being heard and thus violating the principles of natural justice. Addition of Rs.33,83,80,681 to Book Profit under Section 115JB ... facts by passing the order without considering the adjournment request duly filed by the Appellant, thereby not granting the Appellant an adequate opportunity of being heard and thus violating the principles of natural justice. Consequential levy of interest under section 234C of the Act 7. The leaned CIT(A) erred

Progressive Surface Systems Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle 13(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6699/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Prusethprogressive Surface Vs. Circle 13(1)(2) Systems Private Limited Aayakar Bhawan, Maharishi Karve Road, 3-B, Udyog Nagar, S.V. Churchgate, Road, Malad West, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400064. Pan/Gir No: Aaccp9075D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69C

circumstances of the case, and in law, learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) erred in dismissing the appeal without affording a single opportunity of being heard by fixing the hearing. ITA No.6699/MUM/2025/AY 2013-14 Progressive Surface Systems Private Limited 2. On the facts, and in circumstances of the case

Raees Alam Siddiqui, Ghazipur vs. Dy. C.I.T., Range - 1, Varanasi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 39/VNS/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi31 Dec 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Arvind Shukla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amandeep Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating that the order passed by Ld. AO was in absence of granting proper opportunity of being heard to appellant. 3. Because learned the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred both in law and on facts in of by confirming penalty Rs.2 ... levied assessing officer under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 without affording proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 4. Because on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC erred in upholding levying penalty

Ansari Steel, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 433/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Sarju Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. Considering the above facts, we note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead its case successfully before the Ld. CIT(A). 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 its case. Accordingly, we hold that the interests of justice would be met, if we set aside the order of CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer with

M/S. Kalyan Tiles, at: - Charadava, Morbi-Halvad High-Way, Tal.: - & Dist. : - Morbi-363330 vs. The ITO Ward-3, Morbi

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

ITA 2/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

referred to as the “CIT(A)”] erred on facts as also in law in dismissing the appeal ex-parte and not affording adequate opportunity of being heard. 3. The ld. CIT(A) erred on facts as also in law in confirming addition of Rs.37,14,970/- made ... Kalyan Tiles the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. Considering the above facts, we note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead its case successfully before the Ld. CIT(A). Considering the above facts, we note that it is settled

Damodar Prasad Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-3(5), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1204/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Parwal, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. Brij Lal Meena, Addl. CIT

Section 115BSection 250Section 69A

above was recorded by the AO at para 4 of his order as under:- “4. During the course of assessment proceedings, the opportunity of being heard was given to the assessee and vide his letter dated 21/11/2019, the assessee has stated reason for variation in figure is due to following

Narendra Singh Bisht, Gomtinagar vs. ACIT- 1, Lucknow-New, Lucknow

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

ITA 63/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.63/Lkw/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Narendra Singh Bisht V. Acit-1, Lucknow New 123, Khargapur, Gomtinagar, Aayakar Bhawan, Ashok Malesemau, Uttar Pradesh- Marg, Lucknow-226001. 226010. Pan:Aljpb0987D अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Ashwani Jaiswal, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04 11 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 30 12 2025 Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Jaiswal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 282Section 68

assessee contended that the assessment order was passed ex parte to the assessee. He contended that the assessee was not afforded adequate opportunity of being heard. He reiterated the contents of the written submissions. It is contended that no compliance was due to technical issues whereby the notices of hearing

Tafseer Ahmad, Lucknow vs. DDIT/ADIT(Intl Tax)Lkn, Lucknow

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

ITA 517/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69A

interest of justice, the matter may be restored to the file of the AO for deciding the same afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He submitted that the assessee undertakes to produce all the relevant documents in support of his claim before

Mrs. Ranjana, Mrizapur vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 505/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Mrs Ranjana V. The Assessing Officer Village Dewapur Pachwal Nafc Post Rajapur, Aamghat Mirzapur (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aoxpr7130M (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Narendra Kumar Sahu, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.03.2025, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Purchased An Immovable Property Valued At Rs.60,00,000/- . The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice To The Assessee Under Section 148 Of The Act. However, The Assessee Neither Responded To The Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act Nor Filed Any Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Assessing Officer (Ao)

For Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 is void, as it was completed without providing the appellant a sufficient opportunity of being heard and is vitiated by procedural irregularities. 8. The additions are based оп mere assumptions and conjecture, without conducting any proper inquiry, despite the appellant

Santosh Kumar Gupta, Lucknow vs. The Assessment Unit, NFAC, Delhi/ITO-1(4), Lucknow

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

ITA 498/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Santosh Kumar Gupta V. The Assessment Unit (Nfac) 624 61, Chinhat Ito 1(4), Lucknow Faizabad Road Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ahspg3013E (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Mahendra Kumar, Fca Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.05.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was Carrying On The Business Of Mobiles, Electrical & Electronic Goods. The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits Of Rs.15,60,000/- During The Demonetization Period (From 09.11.2016 To 31.12.2016) In His Four Different Bank Accounts Bearing A/C Nos.20050580560 & 31121736248, Maintained With State Bank Of India, Chinhat Branch, Lucknow, A/C No.1840210572, Maintained With Central Bank Of India

For Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 144Section 44ASection 69A

Harnek Singh, Shahjahanpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Shahjahanpur

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

ITA 492/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Harnek Singh V. The Income Tax Officer Jaswant Nagar Shahjahanpur Narotha Hansram Shahjahanpur Tan/Pan:Hdgps6958R (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Dharmendra Kumar, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.03.2025, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits Totaling To Rs.10,56,500/- In His Following Bank Accounts During The Demonetization Period (9.11.2016 To 30.12.2016):

For Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R

Section 10(1)Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144(1)Section 69A

assessee, arbitrarily upholding the order passed by the AO. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the AO had not allowed adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and had passed the impugned assessment order under section 144 of the Act, without bringing on record any material in support ... interest of justice, the matter may be restored to the file of the AO for deciding the same afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He submitted that the assessee undertakes to produce all the relevant documents in support of his claim before

Amar Diwakar, Kanpur Nagar vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Kanpur

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 117/LKW/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Amar Diwakar V. Dcit J0512, Avas Vikas Circle 4 Keshavpuram, Kalyanpur Kanpur Kanpur Nagar (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aiypd7324G (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Pradeep Seth, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.12.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That As Per Information Gathered By The Department From Network Management System (Nms) Portal, The Assessee Had Earned Salary Income Of Rs.17,50,162/- From Fiit Jee Ltd & Had Made Cash Deposit Of Rs.11,50,000/- In His Saving Bank Account During The Year Under Consideration. The Assessee Had Not Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Initiated Proceedings Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 After Issuing Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act To The Assessee. In Response To The Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act

For Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

restored the matter to AO’s file for deciding the same afresh as per provisions of the Act after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with the principles of natural justice. 2.6 Being further aggrieved, now the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order

Shamkant Keshav Kotkar (Prop. Nandan Builders), Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1358/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 26Section 263Section 40

therefore, intend to set aside/ modify the assessment order within the meaning of section 263 of the I.T Act, 1961 An opportunity of being heard is therefore, given to you You are requested to attend in person or through your authorized representative

Rina Ray, Siliguri vs. ITO, Ward 3(2), Darjeeling

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

ITA 2262/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2262/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Rina Ray,………….………………….………...……Appellant C/O. Amit Kumar Ray, St. Josoph School Road, Matigara, Siliguri-734010, West Bengal [Pan:Bhipr4602M] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-3(2), Darjeeling, 27/19, Ajc Bose Road, Near Lal Kuthi, P.O. & P.S. Darjeeling, Darjeeling-734101, West Bengal Appearances By: Shri Sujit Basu, Advocate & Shri Rajib Mukherjee, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 31, 2025 O R D E R

Section 148Section 45Section 50CSection 54E

remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) with a direction to dispose of this appeal on merits after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5 Rina Ray 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

Rajkumari Dhanuka, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 32(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 2260/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2260/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Rajkumari Dhanuka,…………….………….…Appellant 113, Park Street, Kolkata-700016 [Pan:Adupd7020N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-32(2), Kolkata, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 08, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 31, 2025 O R D E R

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

remit the matter back to the file of ld. Addl/JCIT(Appeals) with a direction to re-examine the issues afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and dispose of on merit considering whether the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section

Century Commotrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolkata

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

ITA 1324/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1324/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Century Commotrade Pvt. Limited,.……..…Appellant 10B, Sikdar Para Street, Jorasanko, Kolkata-700007 [Pan:Aabcc0694E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-9(3), Kolkata Appearances By: Shri Nikhil Sharme, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 08, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 31, 2025 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 14A

required, but the ld. Assessing Officer passed the impugned ex-parte order without considering the submission made by the assessee and without giving opportunity of being heard, which is bad in law. The ld. Counsel also pleaded that the ld. CIT(Appeals) did not consider it on merit and upheld ... examined by the ld. Assessing Officer the documents as well as bills and vouchers and pass the order on merit after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. With regard to other issues, i.e. disallowance under the head ‘general expenses’ and ‘travelling & conveyance expenses’, the ld. CIT(Appeals

Urban Co-Operative Credit Society Limited., Ramanagara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ramanagara

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

ITA 1156/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 44ASection 57Section 58Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

this issue to the file of the AO for making proper verification and thereafter pass orders in accordance with law after granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Page 6 of 6 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order

Santosh Kumar Ramlaxman Yadav, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 42(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5123/MUM/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 144Section 148Section 151ASection 69

back to Ld.CIT(A) to consider and decide all the grounds raised by assessee in accordance with law. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to assessee. Accordingly, grounds raised by assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, appeal filed by assessee

Alpha Charitable Trust, Thane vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune

In the result grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 455/MUM/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Ms.Padmavathy Salpha Charitable Trust, Commissioner Of Income H. No.453, Ghosar Wadi, Tax (Exemption), Room No.322, 3Rd Floor, Income Bhandar Aali, Bhuigaon-West, Vs. Bhuigaon Bk, Bhuigaon B.O, Tax Office, Pmt Building, Thane. Shankar Seth Road, Pan – Aaita4259M Pune-411037. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kishor Phadke (Virtually Appear)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (CIT-DR)

Section 12A

registration u/s 12A of ITA, 1961. (3) The learned CIT (Exemption), Pune, erred in law and on facts in not providing sufficient reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant, as provided u/s 12AB of the ITA, 1961; to submit the details/information. Appellant contends that, Appellant is keen to ensure