← 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

Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Private Limited, Ramanagara vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-2, Bangalore

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

ITA 188/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli , CIT (DR)
Section 92C

Method is the Most Appropriate Method and the AO is directed to apply the said method in determining the ALP, after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are treated as allowed. 19. The facts in AY 2014-15 are identical

The Karnataka Sahakri Sakkare Karkhane Niyamitha, Haveri vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Haveri

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

ITA 3276/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jun 2022AY 2012-13
For Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar
Section 143(2)Section 40Section 43BSection 69C

furnish the confirmation from the bank based on Page 8 of 9 which the claim shall be considered. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard is to be granted to the assessee. Accordingly, this ground raised by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. 15. Ground ... remand this issue to the Ld.AO to consider the claim in accordance with law. Needless to Page 9 of 9 say that proper opportunity of being heard is to be granted to the assessee. Accordingly, this ground raised by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. 16. Ground

Mrs. Amritha Raj, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2, Mangaluru

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

ITA 162/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina BhatiaFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale
Section 144

both the assessment years under consideration and restore all the issues to his file for examining them afresh after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. I also direct the assessee to appear before the learned CIT(A) without fail for expeditious disposal of the appeals

Mrs. Amritha Raj, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

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

ITA 161/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina BhatiaFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale
Section 144

both the assessment years under consideration and restore all the issues to his file for examining them afresh after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. I also direct the assessee to appear before the learned CIT(A) without fail for expeditious disposal of the appeals

Mapei Construction Products (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 283/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 283/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Mapei Construction Products (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant A01 & B01, Solus Jain Commissioner Of Heights, Income Tax, 1St Floor, 1St Cross, Circle 4 (1)(2), J C Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 002. Pan: Aahcm0464A Appellant Respondent : Shri S. Ramasubramanyam, Assessee By Ca : Shri Janardhan, Addl. Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Dated 24/03/2021 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Under National Assessment Centre, New Delhi, Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 143(3A) & (3B) Of The Act, For The Assessment Year 2016- 17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Jurisdiction 1.1. That The Learned Lower Authorities Erred In Law & On Facts In Referring The Case To The Learned Transfer Pricing

For Respondent: Shri S. Ramasubramanyam
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92C

92CA of Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) without recording the satisfaction as per Instruction No. 3 of 2016 and without providing an opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 1.4. That the learned lower authorities erred in law and on facts in holding that the CBDT Instruction is applicable ... specified domestic transactions or they do not impact the income of the taxpayer. In the above three situations, the AO must provide an opportunity of being heard to the taxpayer before recording his satisfaction or otherwise. In case no objection is raised by the taxpayer to the applicability of Chapter

M/S. Model Infra Corporation Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 11/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Model Infra Corporation Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant No. 6, Second Floor, Smk Commissioner Of Chambers, Income Tax, First A Main Road, Circle – 1(1), Yelahanka New Town, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 064. Pan: Aadcm7125J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nitish Ranjan, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Revenue By Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 29-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Order Dated 25.10.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-4, Bangalore For A.Y. 2009-10 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: Tax Effect Relating Grounds Of Appeal To Each Ground Of Appeal The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income- 1. Tax (Appeals) Is Opposed To Law, Facts & Na - Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Nitish Ranjan, CA
Section 36Section 36(2)

circumstances of the case. Page 2 of 16 The order is passed in haste, without 2. providing sufficient and reasonable - NA - opportunity of being heard. The order is passed against the 3. principle of natural justice and thus liable to - NA - be quashed. The Ld. Assessing Officer has erred ... support its claim. The Ld.CIT(A) is directed to pass an order on merits in detail, in accordance with law, by granting proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, grounds raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. 3.3 Ground nos. 10 – 15 3.3.1 These grounds are raised

M/S. Stonehill Education Foundation, Bengaluru vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)-12, Bengaluru

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the years under consideration partly stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2061/BANG/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Roti, CA
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

call upon all relevant information in order to come to a conclusion, in accordance with law. 6. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard is to be granted to assessee. Accordingly, the issue of taxability of the payments made by assessee has to be decided prior to coming

M/S. Stonehill Education Foundation, Bengaluru vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)-12, Bengaluru

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the years under consideration partly stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2060/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Roti, CA
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

call upon all relevant information in order to come to a conclusion, in accordance with law. 6. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard is to be granted to assessee. Accordingly, the issue of taxability of the payments made by assessee has to be decided prior to coming

United Breweries Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 2569/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92B(1)

AO/TPO for fresh consideration in the light of law as explained above and the other observations in this order. The AO/TPO will afford opportunity of being heard to the assessee in the set aside proceedings, before deciding the issue. 20. The next dispute is with regard to determination

Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India LLP (Sucessor of Delotte Touche Tohmatsu India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT -Cir 6(2) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 9/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.09/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu बिधम/ Acit-Circle 6(2)(1) India Llp (Successor Of Room No.504, 5Th Floor, Vs. Delotte Touche Tohmatsu Aayakar Bhavan, India Pvt. Ltd.) Maharshi Karve Road, One International Centre, Churchgate, Mumbai- Tower-3, 32Nd Floor, 400020. Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road (W), Mumbai-400013. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aalfd7157J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ketan Ved Revenue By: Ms. R. M. Madhavi (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Nfac), Delhi Dated 15.11.2021 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Drew Our Attention To The Fact That The First Appellate Authority (Nfac) Has Passed The Order Without Giving Proper Opportunity To The Assessee. According To The Ld. Ar, The Assessee Had Filed All The Documents Sought For By The Cit(A) As Well As Had Filed Application Dated 23.01.2019 For Admission Of Additional Evidences (Refer Page No. 5 To 8 Of The Paper Book) As Well As Copy Of Letter Dated 25.10.2021 Uploaded On Income Tax E- Filing Portal On 09.10.2021 In Response To The Notices Dated 01.10.2021 & 11.10.2021 Respectively (Page No. 1 To 4 Of The Paper Book)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Ms. R. M. Madhavi (DR)
Section 36(1)(iii)

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. 4 A.Y. 2012-13 Deloitte Touche 2. Two questions were placed before the High Court, of which the second question is not pressed

Magic It Solutions Pvt Ltd, Mulund West vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Mumbai

ITA 252/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kantassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Magic It Solutions Commissioner Of Income Pvt. Ltd., Tax (Appeals)-24, B-25/26, Mumbai Vs. Matruchaya Building, S.N. Road, Mulund (West), Pan: Aagcm3180L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Jhunjhunwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kiran P. Unavekar, D.R
Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 69Section 69C

view of the matter without entering into the merits of the case, we are of the considered view that when adequate opportunity of being heard has not been given to the assessee, the findings returned by the Ld. CIT(A) are not sustainable in the eyes ... hereby remit this case back to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide afresh after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. Consequently, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 31.05.2022. (OM PRAKASH KANT) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL

Gurudut Rajdev Mishra, Mumbai vs. ITO -30(1)(4), Mumbai

ITA 912/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kant

For Appellant: Smt. Aasifa Khan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kiran P. Unavekar, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 40A(3)

grounds inter alia that: ITA No.912 /M/2021 2 Shri Gurudut Rajdev Mishra “I. NO PROPER AND EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD: 1.1 The learned Commissioner of Income - tax (Appeals) - 41, Mumbai ["the Id. CIT (A)") erred in confirming the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer ["the A.O."] in breach ... principles of natural justice, in as much as no sufficient, proper and effective opportunity of being heard was given to the Appellant. 1.2 It is submitted that in the fact and circumstance of the case and in law, the action of the Id. CIT (A) was bad and illegal

Rajabali Membhai Momin, Thane vs. ITO 2(4), Thane

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

ITA 1750/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rajabali Memabhai Momin, Ito-2(4), A/601, Rohan Nishant Chs, Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, Shanti Park, Mira Road, Vs. Road No. 16Z, Thane-401 107. Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane West-400604. Pan No. Atqpm 6904 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Sameer Dalal, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Kiran P. Unavekar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 31/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/05/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Sameer Dalal, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kiran P. Unavekar, DR
Section 115BSection 250Section 69

erred in passing ex - parte order under section 250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 (the Act) without giving sufficient, proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the Appellant while passing the order. 1.2 The CIT (A) failed to appreciate / consider that the Appellant in response to notice dated ... direction to pass a speaking order after taking into consideration explanation of the assessee on the issue-in-dispute and after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the Rajabali Memabhai Momin 6 assessee. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result

Ratish Narayanan Nambiar, Mumbai vs. ITO WD1(20, Mumbai

ITA 1731/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kantassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Satish Kadam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kiran P. Unavekar, D.R

bank of assessee having been taken from his 4 Shri Ratish Narayanan Nambiar mother as pensioner after due verification. AO shall provide opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 9. Consequently, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 31.05.2022. (OM PRAKASH KANT) (KULDIP

Jt. Commisioner of Income Tax (OSD) CC-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Andhra Expressway Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1589/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 254

Tribunal by filing appeal, wherein it has restored the matter back to the file of the AO to decide afresh after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee by holding that the AO has not given any basis for adopting the profit rate @ 30%. 6. In the second round ... litigation the AO provided opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Declining the contentions raised by the assessee the AO proceeded to estimate the gross profit @ 12.5% of the alleged purchases considered as suppressed profits for the year under consideration as against the assessee’s gross profit/net profit percentage

Play Games 24 X 7 Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 13, Mumbai

ITA 3600/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 163Section 263Section 40

revenue on the aforesaid two issues and thereby set aside the assessment order with direction to decide the issue afresh after providing opportunity of being heard in the light of the observations made in the order passed under section 263 of the Act. Feeling aggrieved from the impugned order passed

Athena Investment, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3840/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3840/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Ito-25(2)(1), Athena Investment C-12, R. No. 703, 7Th Floor, 905, D Square, Opp. Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Bandra Cnm School, बिधम/ Kurla Complex, Dadabhai Road, Vile Vs. Mumbai-400 051 Parle (West), Mumbai-400 056 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aampa7242E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri Sanjay Parikh, Ld. Ar By प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent : Shri Mehul Jain, Ld. Dr By सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 30.05.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 31.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 02.01.2017, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-37

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Parikh, Ld. AR byFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain, Ld. DR by
Section 143(3)

assessee is mainly aggrieved by ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A) without giving any reasonable reason and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee and not deciding the appeals on merits. 3. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in this case, the appeal ... decide afresh in accordance with law on the grounds raised before him after giving the assessee due and effective opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to co-operate in the hearing and to substantiate its case. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee

Solvay Pharma India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 2(1), Mumbai

ITA 2671/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajneesh Yadav, D.R
Section 115Section 145ASection 14A

sustainable and as such to decide the issue in entirety, is restored to the file of AO to decide afresh after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee in the light of the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Glass Works

Corp Attire, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 202/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.202/Bang/2021 Assessment Year :2015-16 M/S. Nike India Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Ground & First Floor, Circle – 3(1)(1), Olympia Building, No.66/1, Bagmane Tech Bengaluru. Park, C. V. Raman Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 093. Pan : Aabcn 9612 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Susan Dolores George, Cit(Osd)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 144(3)Section 92C

issue to the file of AO/TPO for examining it afresh by duly considering the various evidences furnished by the assessee. After affording adequate opportunity of being heard, the AO/TPO may take appropriate decision in accordance with law. 3.3 Consistent with the view taken by the coordinate bench, we remand this

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(2), Bangalore vs. Mr. M R Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 256/BANG/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2007-08
For Respondent: Shri Naginchand Khincha
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153Section 153A

objection before this Tribunal against the impugned order. The Ld.CIT(A) is directed o pass a detailed order on merits after granting proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to file all relevant documents in support of its claim. Page 26 of 26 Accordingly Ground