← 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

M/S. Altisource Business Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 183/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Nitin G. Inamdar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas T. Bidari, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)

miscellaneous expenditure a. The Learned AO erred in adding entire miscellaneous expenditure without issuing any show-cause notice and without providing an opportunity of being heard, after the Assessee inadvertently missed to provide the break-up of expenditure during course of assessment. b. Subsequent to DRP directions, the Learned

M/S Gokula Education Foundation Medical, Bangalore vs. Additional Director of Income Tax Range-17, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 946/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Roumuan Paite, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

examine the facts from the record produced by the assessee and decide the issue in accordance with law, after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes. Unutilized grants treated as income 20. The ground raised by the assessee in this regard

M/S Ingersoll-Rand Climate Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 729/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

back to the TPO/AO to do IT(TP)A Nos.729/Bang/2017 Page 11 of 16 fresh benchmarking analysis adopting RPM as MAM after reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 14. The light of the decision of Ground no.7 on the application of RPM as MAM the alternate ground raised ... directed to consider the issue of brought forward business and depreciation loss and set-off the same in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 25. In the result, the appeal of the assessees is partly allowed. Pronounced in the open court on this 25th

M/S Ingersoll-Rand Technologies and Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 728/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

consideration with similar directions and to decide the issue of characterization of services rendered by the assessee to its AE, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to provide the required details in this regard and cooperate with the proceedings. Ground ... AO/TPO for consideration of evidence submitted by the assessee and to decide the issue in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. IT(TP)A Nos.728/Bang/2017 Page 17 of 17 28. Ground Nos.21 & 22 were not pressed at the time of hearing and dismissed

Sonal Classic Chs Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), Delhi

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

ITA 2392/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Kavitha Rajagopal () - 2014-15 - 2015-16 - 2016-17

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Ld.CIT(A) for deciding the appeal fresh after calling for the details required by him from the assessee and after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to furnish all the details that may be required by the Ld.CIT(A). 7. In the result

Sonal Classic Chs Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 2391/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Kavitha Rajagopal () - 2014-15 - 2015-16 - 2016-17

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Ld.CIT(A) for deciding the appeal fresh after calling for the details required by him from the assessee and after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to furnish all the details that may be required by the Ld.CIT(A). 7. In the result

Sonal Classic Chs Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), Mumbai

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

ITA 2390/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Kavitha Rajagopal () - 2014-15 - 2015-16 - 2016-17

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Ld.CIT(A) for deciding the appeal fresh after calling for the details required by him from the assessee and after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to furnish all the details that may be required by the Ld.CIT(A). 7. In the result

New Metal Refinery India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2616/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 2614 To 2616/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14) New Metal Refinery India बनाम/ Dcit-5(1)(2) Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, New Marine Vs. 132, Appa Building, S.V.P. Line, Mumbai-400020. Road, Null Bazar, Mumbai- 400004. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcn9710C (अपीलधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Rajesh S. Shah Revenue By: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. Ar) सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing: 18/07/2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 22.01.2019 For A.Y. 2009- 10, 2010-11 & 2013-14. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Pointed Out That The Impugned Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is An Exparte Order, Even Though In The Cause-Title Of The Impugned Order, It Is Shown That Shri Shantilal Vora, Director Have Appeared For The Assessee. In Order To Demonstrate That It Was An Exparte Order, He Drew Our Attention To Para No. 7.2 Of The Impugned Order Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Observed That The Appeal Was Fixed For Hearing Time To Time & That Shri Shantilal Vora, Director Of Assessee Appeared For Hearing Time To Time & Requested For Adjournments Which Were Granted But He Could Neither Make Any

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. AR)
Section 147

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

New Metal Refinery India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2615/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 2614 To 2616/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14) New Metal Refinery India बनाम/ Dcit-5(1)(2) Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, New Marine Vs. 132, Appa Building, S.V.P. Line, Mumbai-400020. Road, Null Bazar, Mumbai- 400004. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcn9710C (अपीलधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Rajesh S. Shah Revenue By: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. Ar) सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing: 18/07/2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 22.01.2019 For A.Y. 2009- 10, 2010-11 & 2013-14. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Pointed Out That The Impugned Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is An Exparte Order, Even Though In The Cause-Title Of The Impugned Order, It Is Shown That Shri Shantilal Vora, Director Have Appeared For The Assessee. In Order To Demonstrate That It Was An Exparte Order, He Drew Our Attention To Para No. 7.2 Of The Impugned Order Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Observed That The Appeal Was Fixed For Hearing Time To Time & That Shri Shantilal Vora, Director Of Assessee Appeared For Hearing Time To Time & Requested For Adjournments Which Were Granted But He Could Neither Make Any

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. AR)
Section 147

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

New Metal Refinery India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2614/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 2614 To 2616/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14) New Metal Refinery India बनाम/ Dcit-5(1)(2) Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, New Marine Vs. 132, Appa Building, S.V.P. Line, Mumbai-400020. Road, Null Bazar, Mumbai- 400004. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcn9710C (अपीलधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Rajesh S. Shah Revenue By: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. Ar) सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing: 18/07/2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 22.01.2019 For A.Y. 2009- 10, 2010-11 & 2013-14. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Pointed Out That The Impugned Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is An Exparte Order, Even Though In The Cause-Title Of The Impugned Order, It Is Shown That Shri Shantilal Vora, Director Have Appeared For The Assessee. In Order To Demonstrate That It Was An Exparte Order, He Drew Our Attention To Para No. 7.2 Of The Impugned Order Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Observed That The Appeal Was Fixed For Hearing Time To Time & That Shri Shantilal Vora, Director Of Assessee Appeared For Hearing Time To Time & Requested For Adjournments Which Were Granted But He Could Neither Make Any

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. AR)
Section 147

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

Torrecid India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7076/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Acit Circle 11(3)(1) Torrecid India Private Limited 2Nd Floor, Plot No.29, 30, 31, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Alindra, Savli Gidc, Vadodara, Vadodara–391775 Mk Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadct 4321 M

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. Lala, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Neelu Jaggi, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92

changing the method adopted by the assessee. Assessee is aggrieved since the learned transfer-pricing officer did not provide the assessee of an opportunity of being heard on this aspect. The claim of the assessee is that the honourable Bombay High Court affirmed a decision of the coordinate bench accepting

Alpana Jain, Bhayander vs. DCIT CC 1 (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4983/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2022AY 2014-15
Section 132Section 68

additional evidences furnished by the assessee and also any other information and explanations that may be furnished by the assessee. After providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the AO may take appropriate decision in accordance with law. 6. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee

Alpana Jain, Bhayender vs. DCIT CC 1 (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4982/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2022AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 68

additional evidences furnished by the assessee and also any other information and explanations that may be furnished by the assessee. After providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the AO may take appropriate decision in accordance with law. 6. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee

Cisco Systems Capital (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 321/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

deduction of the principal component, where the depreciation on such assets is disallowed. However, learned faceless AO without providing the Appellant with an opportunity of being heard, has passed the final assessment, disallowing the depreciation on assets IT(TP)A No.321/Bang/2022 Cisco Systems Capital (India) Private Ltd., Bangalore Page ... Without prejudice to the above grounds, the learned AO has erred in law and in fact by not giving the Assessee an opportunity of being heard pursuant to Hon'ble DRP's direction with regard to verification of lease rentals (both principal component as well as the interest portion

Umesh B Balikai, Hubli vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

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

ITA 505/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 253Section 264Section 57

follows:- “1. The order passed by the learned PCIT, Hubli is illegal, baseless and opposed to the facts of the case. Proper opportunity of being heard has not been given by said authority. 2. The assessee has received interest on enhanced compensation on compulsory acquisition which is part of compensation

Marvel Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy Comm. of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(2) Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 779/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2022AY 2012-13
Section 250

appointed by High Court, Bombay is in charge of all assets and records of the company ii) The assessee was not given proper opportunity of being heard and assessment was done ex-parte. iii) The assessee shall not be held liable for non compliance on the part of official liquidator

Smt Juri H. Mehanta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

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

ITA 630/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Learned Cit(A) Also, The Assessee Did Not Appear & Hence Learned Cit(A) Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee For Non-Prosecution On The Part Of The Assessee.

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147

learned CIT(A) and restore all the issues to his file for adjudicating them afresh in accordance with law, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open

Gujarat Research Society, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 599/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalegujarat Research Society Vs. Cit(Exemption) Dr. Madhuri Shah Room No. 601, 6Th Campus, Ram Krishna Floor, Cumballa Hill, Mission Marg, Mtnl Bldg, Mumbai- 400052. Peddar Road, Mumbai -400026. Pan/Gir No. : Aaatg2519A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Jayesh Dadia.Ar Respondent By : Shri.S.Ambuselvam.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai Passed U/Sec263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri.Jayesh Dadia.ARFor Respondent: Shri.S.Ambuselvam.DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

examine the details evidences of such explanation and arrive at concrete findings in his order after giving the assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard. 8. Subject to these directions, the assessment order dated 05/12/2019 is set aside under section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 6. Aggrieved by the revision

Mehul Gems Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC-1(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the different assessees are allowed in terms as indicated above

ITA 384/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 384/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya &For Respondent: Shri Mahita Nair, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 251(2)

case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in changing protective addition to substantive addition without issuing any show cause notice or opportunity of being heard to the appellant, which is in violation of section 251(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and in violation of the principles ... erred in changing a small part of protective addition on account of sales without issuing any show cause notice or opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6 I.T.A. No. 384 & 387/Mum/2022 5. The brief facts of the case are that, assessee has filed original return of income

Rameshwara Kudumangalore Prathamika Krushi Pattinasahakara Sanga Niyamitha, Kodugu vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kodugu

In the result, the appeal by the assessees is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 492/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D George, CIT(OSD)
Section 143(3)Section 260Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)

requisite details in support of the claim which would be verified by the Ld.AO in accordance with law. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard to be granted to assessee in accordance with law.” ITA No.492 /Bang/2021 Page 8 of 8 9. Respectfully following the decision ... principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mavilayi Services Cooperative Bank Ltd., (Supra) and provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee . The assessee is directed to file the required documents before the AO and extend full cooperation