“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

Dz Bank India Representative Office, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of the recalled grounds, are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1815/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dz Bank, India Representative Dcit (International Taxation) Office C/O Srbc & Associates Llp, Range-2(1)(2), 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Vs. 16Th Floor, Room No. 1612, Air Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400028. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aabcd 6455 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. P.J. Pardiwala/Jeet Kamdar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Somendu Kumar Dash, Sr. DR

assessee. It is needless to mention that the adequate opportunity of being mention that the adequate opportunity of being mention that the adequate opportunity of being heard shall be provided to the assessee. The ground provided to the assessee. The grounds relating to the credit of the relating

Dz Bank India Representative Office, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of the recalled grounds, are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1814/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Mr. P.J. Pardiwala/Jeet Kamdar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Somendu Kumar Dash, Sr. DR

Dz Bank India Representative Office, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of the recalled grounds, are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1813/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr. P.J. Pardiwala/Jeet Kamdar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Somendu Kumar Dash, Sr. DR

Dz Bank India Representative Office, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of the recalled grounds, are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1812/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Mr. P.J. Pardiwala/Jeet Kamdar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Somendu Kumar Dash, Sr. DR

Pearl Freight Serv. P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Aksh Jain, ACIT -15(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 31/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blepearl Freight Services Pvt. Ltd., V. Acit-15(2)(2) B-106, Great Services Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 357, 3Rd Floor Sector – 15, Cbd Belapur Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Navi Mumbai – 400614 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcp1825G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Shruti Mishra Department By : Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal

For Appellant: Ms. Shruti MishraFor Respondent: Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

although submissions were filed & duly acknowledged by his office against the erroneous remand report, the learned CIT(A) for reasons best known, opportunity of being heard was categorically denied when we made an appearance on the date and the order was passed inferring that no submissions were made, which ... case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in making above the additions and disallowance without giving an adequate opportunity of being heard and by not observing the principles of natural justice, thereby we appeal that the case be remanded back to the file

Rajesh R. Sawlani, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 1498/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Section 143Section 56Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

fresh adjudication. Needless to say, the A.O shall in the course of the set-aside proceedings afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. We see no reasons to take any other view of the matter than the view so taken by the co- ordinate bench. Respectfully

ACIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. L & T Ltd ( Datar Switch Gear Ltd Merged ), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3806/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2022AY 2004-05

Section 143(3)

Accordingly, we restore this issue to the file of AO for examining it in accordance with law, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard. 23. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical

Cae Flight Training (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 520/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 520/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Cae Flight Training (India) Pvt. Ltd., Survey No. 26 & 27, The Deputy Bandaramanahalli Commissioner Of Village, Income Tax, Anneshwara Panchayat, Central Circle – 2 (2), Kasaba Hobli, Vs. Bangalore. Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru – 562 110. Pan: Aadcc1248A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit Dr-1 Date Of Hearing : 02-08-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Assessment Order Dated 12/04/2022 By The Ld.Dcit, Central Circle – 2(2), Bangalore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, M/S. Cae Flight Training (India) Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Appellant") Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Against The Order Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CA

Section 253Section 92CSection 92D

proper to restore the ALP aspect to AO/TPO in all of these years for a decision as per law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We do not make any comment on this issue.” 9. We note that in the preceding assessment years, the issue

M/S. Lancesoft India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 273/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 273/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Lancesoft India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy 7/1, Manohar Plaza, Commissioner Of Kundalhalli Gate, Income Tax, Brookfields, Itpl Circle – 4(1)(1), Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 066. Pan: Aaacl9790K Appellant Respondent : Shri K.R. Vasudevan & Assessee By Smt. R. Rashmi, Advocates : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit Dr-1 Date Of Hearing : 02-08-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Assessment Dated 30/04/2021 Passed By The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act On Following Concise Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Hereinafter Are Without Prejudice To Each Other Wrong Characterization 1. The Learned Tpo Erred In Characterizing The Services Rendered By The Appellant Erroneously As Ites Whereas The Appellant Renders Staff Recruitment Services, Which Has Vitiated The Comparability Analysis;

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Vasudevan &

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92C

interest of justice, we remand the entire computation of arms length to the Ld.TPO for denovo assessment. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to assessee in accordance with law. Accordingly, the grounds raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. In the result

Sri. K. Satish Kumar, Bengaluru vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-9, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1988/BANG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 133A(1)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234A

such property is in dispute, the Appellate Tribunal shall, on a request being made in this behalf by the competent authority, give an opportunity of being heard to any Valuation Officer nominated for the purpose by the competent authority." From this it is clear that whenever reference. to a Valuation ... receipt of the report from the Valuation Officer, the Assessing Officer may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard, take into account such report in making such assessment or reassessment: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply in respect of an assessment made on or before

Matrabhav Trust, Mumbai vs. Pr Commissioner of Income Tax-17, Mumbai

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

ITA 872/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalematrabhav Trust Vs. Pr. Cit – 17 5Th Floor, Sunteck Room No. 120, 1St Floor, Centre, 37 40 Kautilya Bhavan G Subhash Road, Vile Block, Bandra Kurla Parle (East) Complex, Bandra(E), Mumbai-400057. Mumbai-400051. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadtm5199F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Rakesh Joshi.Ar Respondent By : Shri .A.B. Koli.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 27.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax 17, Mumbai U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri.Rakesh Joshi.ARFor Respondent: Shri .A.B. Koli.DR

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

115BBDA and pass the assessment order de-novo after due verifications. Needless to say that the Assessing Officer shall give the assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard and pass a speaking order after taking into consideration the explanation and supporting evidence submitted by the assessee. Matrabhav Trust Mumbai. 6. Aggrieved

Shri Pankaj Rameshchandra Shroff, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 663/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhshri Pankaj Vs. Adit, Cpc Rameshchandra Shroff Bengaluru 301, Chitrakoot, Juhu Karnataka-560500. Church Road, Vile Parle(W), Mumbai-400049 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacps7862E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr. Sameer Dalal.Ar Respondent By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 27.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S 154 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr. Sameer Dalal.ARFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi.DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 44ASection 57

application. Since the present appeal relates to rectification order on rectification application filed by the appellant, there is no need for giving any opportunity of being heard. Hence, the plea of the appellant on this ground is rejected. Thus, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 4.2 Ground No. 2 relates

M/S. Rakesh Metal & Tubes, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(3) (1), Mumbai

ITA 5/MUM/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

sufficient to condone the delay. 9. Even by applying the principle of natural justice assessee is required to be provided with an opportunity of being heard which has not been granted by the lower revenue authority. So we are of the considered view that delay of 54 months in filing ... order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide afresh after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 11. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court

Survodaya Urban Co.Op Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT, Mumbai

ITA 158/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kishor Dhule, D.R

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 144Section 68Section 80P

made to furnish any explanation before the AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) by effecting its service, the adequate opportunity of being heard is not given to him. To substantiate the cause of justice and to stop the multiplicity of the proceedings opportunity of being heard is required ... given to the assessee. So in view of the matter, present appeal is remitted back to the AO to decide afresh after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Resultantly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court

M/S. Brandmark Solution Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. TDS CPC/AO NFAC, Delhi

ITA 2410/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Neha Anchaliya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, D.R

Section 200ASection 234E

sufficient ground to condone the delay. Even otherwise to enhance the cause of substantial justice the assessee must be provided with an opportunity of being heard which cannot be denied merely on the ground of delay in seeking the relief, hence the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) dismissing

M/S. Brandmark Solution Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. TDS, CPC/AO Nafc, Delhi

ITA 2409/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Neha Anchaliya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, D.R

Section 200ASection 234E

ACIT Circle 2(1) (1), Mumbai vs. Eclerx Services Limited (Sucessor of M/S. Agilyst Consulting Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1614/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, M/S. Eclerx Services Ltd. Circle 2(1)(1), (Successor Of M/S. Agilyst Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Consulting Pvt. Ltd.), Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Sonawala Building, M.K. Road, Fort, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400 009 Pan: Aaace79321 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arijit Chakravarty, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Mishra, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 251Section 254

erred in directing the TPO to recalculate the margins of the comparable M/s Jindal Intellicom Ltd. after giving the assessee the opportunity of being heard, when it is seen that as per section 251 of the Act the CIT(A) doesn't have the power to set aside the order ... returned the findings by issuing direction to the Ld. TPO to adopt the correct margin after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee by returning following findings: “In case of Jindal Intellicom Ltd. the margin is 7.9% (weighted average) as per appellant’s submission where

Asst. CIT Circle-9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Future E-Commerce Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 6530/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhasst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Future E-Commerce Income Tax, Circle- Infrastructure Limited 9(3)(2), Room No. 418, Ground Floor, Knowledge 4Th Floor, Aayakar House, Off Jogeshwari Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikhroli Link Road, Mumbai – 400020 Jogeshwari (East) Mumbai - 400060 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aabcf1008K Respondent .. Appellant

For Appellant: Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Achal Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

According to it, "the socalled ambiguous wording in the notice [has not] impaired or prejudiced the right of the assessee to a reasonable opportunity of being heard". It went onto observe that for sustaining the plea of natural justice on the ground of absence of opportunity

Mr. Lalitkumar Thanmaljain, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 26 (2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4915/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalemr. Lalitkumar Vs. Ito, Ward – 26(2)(1) Thanmal Jain, Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, A/705, Bawa Tower Bkc, Bandra East Chs, Narayan Nagar, Mumbai -400051. Chunabatti, Mumbai-400022. Pan/Gir No. Aacpj9078M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Jain.Ar Respondent By : Shri Manoj Sinha.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-38, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Jain.ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

agreement. The Hon'ble CIT(A) has enhanced the addition fro Rs 11,00,000/- to Rs. 35,00,000/- without giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellant 1.2 The assessee has made submissions on the additional grounds of appeal and the Ld. DR has no serious objections ... treated as short term capital gains instead of Long Term capital gains. The CIT(A) has also erred in enhancing the addition without opportunity of being heard and the assessee has a good case on merits and can substantiate with material evidence and information and demonstrated the Mr. Lalitkumar Thanmal

M/S. Haris Marine Products, Mangaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 383/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)

Section 143Section 153DSection 263

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 ... 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