← 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

Continuserve Softech India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 242/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.242/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Vs. Dcit, M/S. Continuserve Softech India Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 2(1)(1), Prathik Tech Park, 2Nd & 3Rd Floor, Bengaluru. Sy. No.93/1, Veerasandra Village, Attibele Hobli, Hosur Road, Electronic City Phase 1, Bengaluru – 560 100. Pan : Aaacc 8342 A Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Darpan Kirpalani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 22.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Darpan Kirpalani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

aspect and direct the TPO/AO to verify the profit margin of this company and the claim of the Assessee after affording the Assessee opportunity of being heard. 22. The next argument of the learned Counsel for the assessee was the plea with regard to excluding Infobeans Technologies Ltd., from ... verification of facts. The TPO/AO will verify the factual details and decide the issue of comparability of this company afresh after affording assessee opportunity of being heard. IT(TP)A No.242/Bang/2021 Page 25 of 29 24. The next ground that needs adjudication is the ground with regard to the grievance

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

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2593/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri.Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 2593/Bang/2019 M/S. Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Acit, 2015-16 Te Park, 22B, Doddenakundi Corporation, Circle – 2, 2Nd Phase, Industrial Area, Large Taxpayer Unit, Whitefield Road, Bengaluru Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan: Aabct 7374 C 372/Bang/2021 -Do- -Do- 2016-17 200/Bang/2022 -Do- Dcit, Ltu, 2017-18 Circle – 2, Bengaluru. 716/Bang/2022 -Do- Acit, 2018-19 Circle – 7(1)(1), Bengaluru. Assessee By : Shri Sriram Seshadri, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 92Section 92ASection 92F

fresh consideration in the light of the directions of the Tribunal as contained in Assessment Year 2013-14, after affording the assessee opportunity of being heard. The relevant grounds of appeal in all the 4 appeals accordingly stands allowed for statistical purpose. 16. We shall now deal with ... taken in Assessment Year 2014-15 and on the basis of the outcome in Assessment Year 2014-15. The AO will afford opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 21. Apart from the above issues, in AY 2015-16 in Ground No.25 & 26, the Assessee has projected its grievance

M/S Heritage Property Development Company (P) Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT CC-II(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 938/CHNY/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri K. Meenakshisundaram, ITPFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)

short point, the matter can be referred back to the file of the CIT(A) for re-deciding the appeals after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 3. We have considered this issue and admitted position is that the alleged authorized representative before CIT(A), Shri

M/S Heritage Property Development Company (P) Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT CC-II (2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 937/CHNY/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri K. Meenakshisundaram, ITPFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)

short point, the matter can be referred back to the file of the CIT(A) for re-deciding the appeals after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 3. We have considered this issue and admitted position is that the alleged authorized representative before CIT(A), Shri

Prabha Srisrimal, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Ward 10(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3513/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Respondent: Mr.P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 10(38)Section 68

circumstances of the case. 5 For that the Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the additions without providing an opportunity of being heard under the facts and circumstances of the case. 6 For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not considering

31 Infotechconsultancy Services Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT - 11(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1170/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal () 3I Infotech Consultancy Services Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Limited, Tower No.5, 3Rd To 6Th Tax-11(3)(1), 4Th Floor, Aayakar Floors, International Infortech Park Bhavan, Mumbai Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Pan : Aaacz3181E Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 250Section 72A

case and in law, the lower authorities erred in making an addition of Rs.2,57,97,885/- as bogus purchases without giving proper opportunity of being heard which is against the principle of natural justice and wrong and contrary to the facts of the case, the provisions of Income

Charoen Pokphand Seeds India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-2, Bengaluru

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 509/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Charoen Pokphand Seeds India The Principal Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 1021/1, Service Income Tax, Road, Gitanjali Layout, Bengaluru – 2, Hal Iii Stage, Vs. Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 075. Pan: Aaccc3259N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri C. Ramesh, Ca : Shri Praveen Karanth, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of The Order U/S. 263 Dated 15.03.2022 Passed By The Ld.Pr.Cit, Bengaluru – 2, Bengaluru For Assessment Year 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Appellant Objects To The Revision Order Passed U/S. 263 On The Following Grounds In So Far As It Is Prejudicial To The As It Is Opposed To Law & Circumstances Of The Case: - Originally The Appellant Has Taken Only One Ground Relating To Deduction U/S.35(2Ab). The Following Grounds Were Not Taken By Oversight. Hence The Appellant Is Filing Revised Grounds Of Appeal As Mentioned Below.

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CA
Section 10(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35

assessment for the assessment year 2017-18 is proposed to be revised accordingly. 7. In this connection, you are hereby given an opportunity of being heard by the undersigned on 23.03.2021 at 3.30 PM at Room No.516, BMTC Building, 5th Floor, 80 Feet Road, Koramangala 6th Block. BENGALURU ... assessee under section 10(1) of the Act. This in no manner will prejudice the assessee. We direct the Ld.AO to grant proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee is directed to file all requisite details in support of the claim.” Respectfully following the same

Haris Kalandan Mohammed, Mangaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on merits

ITA 435/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Haris Kalandan Mohammed, The Principal D.No. 23-10-810, Commissioner Of Umay Bagh, Income Tax 1St Cross, [Central], Yemmekere, Vs. Bengaluru. Mangaluru – 575 001. Pan: Abjph9234P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Praveen Karanth, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 22/03/2022 Passed By Ld.Pr.Cit U/S. 263 For A.Y. 2018-19 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of Revision Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Central], Bengaluru, Under Section 263 Of The Act Dated 22/03/2022, In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Not Justified In Law & On Facts To Set Aside The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate
Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 263Section 68

propose to invoke the provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act. 7. In this regard, you are hereby, given an opportunity of being heard and show cause as to why the impugned order should not be enhanced/ modified or set aside for a fresh assessment under section ... fresh assessment Order after making thorough enquiry on above issues. 11. It is further directed that the Assessing Officer will provide sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee during the course of the set-aside proceedings.” 2.7 Aggrieved by the above order of the Ld.PCIT, assessee is in appeal

Bashir Ahmed Abdurrahman Matte, Belagavi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Belagavi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6/BANG/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.V Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

hospital building at Rs.1,74,56,150 as against estimated by the approved valuer at on the basis of above findings after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee.” 15. The ld.AR submitted that the ld.Pr.CIT is not justified in exercising his power us/ 263 of the Act because

State Bank of India (Sucessor to Erstwhile State Bank of Indore), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 277/MUM/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

Section 14ASection 244ASection 271(1)(c)

decisions relied on by the assessee. Thus, we restore this issue to file of the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 14. In the result, appeal filed

Flo-Dyne Controls (India) Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 15(1) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per above directions

ITA 2112/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Bleflo-Dyne Controls (India) Private Limited V. Income Tax Officer – 15(1)(2) 2501, G Square Business Park Room No. 15B, Ground Floor Plot 25 & 26, Sector 30 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Navi Mumbai - 400703 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aabcf2339M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 41(1)Section 43B

Officer with a direction to verify the same and if found correct the credit may be granted to the assessee after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 20. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee

ACIT Cent Cir 2(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Amish A Modi, Mumbai

ITA 1570/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant Pathak, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor, D.R
Section 10(38)Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 68

learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment u/s 153C which was passed without having jurisdiction to the assessing officer as no opportunity of being heard u/s 127 of the act was granted to the appellant. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ... learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment u/s 153C which was passed without having jurisdiction to the assessing officer as no opportunity of being heard u/s 127 of the act was granted to the appellant. ITA Nos.1311, 1312 & 1468/M/2021 & ors. 4 Shri Amish A. Modi 2. In the facts

Amish Anantrai Modi, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(1), Mumbai

ITA 1468/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant Pathak, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor, D.R
Section 10(38)Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 68

learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment u/s 153C which was passed without having jurisdiction to the assessing officer as no opportunity of being heard u/s 127 of the act was granted to the appellant. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ... learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment u/s 153C which was passed without having jurisdiction to the assessing officer as no opportunity of being heard u/s 127 of the act was granted to the appellant. ITA Nos.1311, 1312 & 1468/M/2021 & ors. 4 Shri Amish A. Modi 2. In the facts

Asstt. CIT, Central Cir-2(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Amish A Modi, Mumbai

ITA 1357/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant Pathak, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor, D.R
Section 10(38)Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 68

learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment u/s 153C which was passed without having jurisdiction to the assessing officer as no opportunity of being heard u/s 127 of the act was granted to the appellant. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ... learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment u/s 153C which was passed without having jurisdiction to the assessing officer as no opportunity of being heard u/s 127 of the act was granted to the appellant. ITA Nos.1311, 1312 & 1468/M/2021 & ors. 4 Shri Amish A. Modi 2. In the facts

Amish Anantrai Modi, Mumbai vs. Dy Cti-CC-2(1), Mumbai

ITA 1312/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant Pathak, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor, D.R
Section 10(38)Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 68

learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment u/s 153C which was passed without having jurisdiction to the assessing officer as no opportunity of being heard u/s 127 of the act was granted to the appellant. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ... learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment u/s 153C which was passed without having jurisdiction to the assessing officer as no opportunity of being heard u/s 127 of the act was granted to the appellant. ITA Nos.1311, 1312 & 1468/M/2021 & ors. 4 Shri Amish A. Modi 2. In the facts

Amish Anantrai Modi, Mumbai vs. Dy Cti-CC-2(1), Mumbai

ITA 1311/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant Pathak, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor, D.R
Section 10(38)Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 68

learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment u/s 153C which was passed without having jurisdiction to the assessing officer as no opportunity of being heard u/s 127 of the act was granted to the appellant. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ... learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment u/s 153C which was passed without having jurisdiction to the assessing officer as no opportunity of being heard u/s 127 of the act was granted to the appellant. ITA Nos.1311, 1312 & 1468/M/2021 & ors. 4 Shri Amish A. Modi 2. In the facts

Implenia Services and Solutions, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -Circle-3(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1226/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Kavitha Rajagopal () Implenia Services & Solutions Pvt Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ltd, 401, Embassy Centre, Nariman Tax, Circle 34), Mumbai Point, Mumbai-400 021 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Pan : Aabci2382R Mumbai. Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 234CSection 250Section 4

appeal. The assessee prayed that the appeal No. CIT(A) 1, MUMBAI/10341/2016-17 be set aside and that the assessee may be given opportunity of being heard and to decide the appeal de novo on merits. 4. Having heard the rival submissions and perused the materials on record, it is observed ... above observation, we deem it fit to restore the appeal to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for de novo adjudication by providing opportunity of being heard to both the parties. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 4 Order pronounced

Alok Madangopal Todi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle- 19(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 528/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blealok Madangopal Todi V. Acit – Circle – 19(1) Flat No. 5, 2Nd Floor Room No. 203, 2Nd Floor Bedekar Building, Hf Society Road Matru Mandir, Tardev Road Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai - 400060 Mumbai – 400 007 Pan: Aadpt0044Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R.S. KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha

final date of hearing.” 3. At the outset, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that Ld.CIT(A) passed exparte order without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, therefore, considering additions/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, Ld. AR of the assessee requested that the matter may be restored ... enhancement proposed by Ld.CIT(A), in the interest of justice we are of the opinion that assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard. Thus, this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication in accordance with law. Assessee is directed to appear

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 33(1), Mumbai vs. Alf Engineering Company, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4204/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 80I

directed to examine the facts afresh and decided in accordance with law. Needless to mention here that the assessee be provided due opportunity of being heard. The assessee is at liberty to furnish necessary evidence, if any, in support of its claim. Thus, the appeals of the Revenue are allowed ... Consequently, both the appeals of the Revenue are set aside to the AO to decide afresh after providing opportunity of being heard to the parties. Consequently, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 20.09.2022. (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (KULDIP

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 33(1), Mumbai vs. Alf Engineering Company, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2055/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 80I

directed to examine the facts afresh and decided in accordance with law. Needless to mention here that the assessee be provided due opportunity of being heard. The assessee is at liberty to furnish necessary evidence, if any, in support of its claim. Thus, the appeals of the Revenue are allowed ... Consequently, both the appeals of the Revenue are set aside to the AO to decide afresh after providing opportunity of being heard to the parties. Consequently, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 20.09.2022. (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (KULDIP