← 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

Smt. Sangeeta, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

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

ITA 6373/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Delhi21 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sangeeta Ito 400/20, Shanti Nagar Vs Ward – 4 (1) Hsidc Building Gurgaon Nh-8, Udyog Vihar-V Pan Eelps7683G Gurgaon (Appellan (Respondent)

documentary evidences in support of her claim and the AO is directed to decide the issue afresh after affording a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 8. The order is pronounced

Omprakash Pandey, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 602/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2017-18 Shri. Omprakash Pandey, Vs. Ito, No.06, Sy. No.35, Basavanpura Main Ward – 4(2)(1), Road, Bhattarahalli, Bengaluru. Bengaluru–560 049. Pan : Azwpp 4082 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Siddesh S Gaddi, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 14.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Siddesh S Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 144

filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and direct the CIT(A) to decide the appeal of the assessee on merits after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Page 3 of 3 4. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Sri. Joison Kundu Kulam Johny, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 5(3)(6), Bangalore

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

ITA 308/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2015-16 Shri. Joison Kundu Kulamjohny, Vs. Ito, No.11, Ephrathah Villa, 2Nd Cross, Ward – 5(3)(6), Sathya Colony, B Narayanapura Bengaluru. Dooravani Nagar, Bengaluru–560 016. Pan : Aetpj 6642 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Kumar Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 15.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.03.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

file of the CIT(Appeals) to consider all these facts and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law, after affording assessee opportunity of being heard. 9. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on the date

M/S. Sasken Technologies Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 6, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2546/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Sasken Technologies Limited, Vs. Jcit, No.139/25, Ring Road, Domlur, Special Range – 6, Bengaluru-560071. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaecs 6424 R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2022 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.11.2019 Of Cit(A), Bengaluru -10, Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Ground No.1 Raised By The Assessee Is General & Calls For No Specific Adjudication. Grounds Nos.2 & 3 Raised By The Assessee Is With Regard To The Issue Whether The Gain On Sale / Assignment Of Intellectual Property Rights (Ipr) Is Assessable To Tax At All & If So Assessable To Tax Whether It Has To Be Assessed To Tax Under The Head “Income From Business Or Profession” Or “Capital Gain”. Page 2 Of 31

For Appellant: Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 1

assessee in the light of CBDT Circular No.37/2016 dated 02.11.2016 on the approach to be adopted on such claims. The AO will afford opportunity of being heard to the assessee before deciding on the issue. 47. Ground No.11 with regard to charging of interest under section 234B and 234C

Nayankumar S Sonawane, Mumbai vs. CIT(A)- 48, Mumbai

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

ITA 4877/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Passing The Order. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred On Facts, In Law & In The Circumstances Of The Case In Rejecting The Application Under Rule 46A For Admission Of Additional Evidence. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred On Facts, In Law & In The Circumstances Of The Case In Confirming Addition Of Rs.1,61,887/- As Unexplained Cash Credits U/S. 68 Of The Income Tax Act To The Returned Income. The Said Amount Represents The Additions On Account Of Cash Deposits With The B Ha Rat Co-Op. Bank Ltd. The Appellant Humbly Prays That The Said Addition Be Deleted. 4. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred On Facts, In Law & In The Circumstances Of The Case In Confirming Addition Of Rs.10,91,600/- As Unexplained Cash Credits U/S. 68 Of The Income Tax Act To The Returned Income. The Said Amount Represents The Additions On Account Of Cash Deposits Of Rs.6,71,600/- & Rs.4,20,000/- Credited To The Account Held With Hindustan Co-Op. Bank Ltd. The Appellant Humbly Prays That The Said Addition Be Deleted.

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

erred on facts, in law and in the circumstances of the case in not giving a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard before passing the order. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts, in law and in the circumstances of the case in rejecting the application under Rule ... afresh in the light of the submissions now being made by the assessee. Needless to mention that the assessee should be granted adequate opportunity of being heard. 7. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 16.3.2022. (SHAMIM YAHYA) ACCOUNTANT

Goodrich Aerospace Services Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 566/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 566/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Goodrich Aerospace Services Pvt. Ltd., 14/1 & 15/1, The Deputy Maruthi Industrial Commissioner Of Estate, Income Tax, Phase 2, Hoody Village, Circle – 3 (1)(1), Whitefield Road, Vs. Bangalore. Kr Puram, Bangalore – 560 048. Pan: Aaacb8857H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 16-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.08.2021 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Hereinafter Taken By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another. I. Transfer Pricing 1. The Learned Assessing Officer ("Ao"), Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("Learned Tpo") & The Honourable Dispute

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate
Section 40Section 92BSection 92C

Ld.AO/TPO for deciding it in conformity with the above referred judgment. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed a reasonable opportunity of being heard in such fresh proceedings. Accordingly Ground 3.1 stands allowed for statistical purposes. Accordingly, the grounds raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(3)(1), Bangalore vs. Shri. Siddaramanna Shailendra Babu, Bangalore

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

ITA 2826/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.RFor Respondent: Smt. Sheetal, A.R

restore this issue also to the file of A.O. Shri Siddaramanna Shailendra Babu, Bangalore Page 4 of 4 5. After affording adequate opportunity of being heard and also by considering the details, that may be furnished by the assessee, the A.O. may take appropriate decision in accordance with

M/S. Skf Technologies (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1773/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri K.R Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

considered on merits. Hence, we remand this issue back to the AO. The AO is directed accordingly and decide after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Page 8 of 12 Adhoc disallowance of housekeeping expenses and other expenses (Ground No 4 & 5) 8. During the year under ... based on AO’s request the assessee also submitted sample invoices. The ld.AR submitted that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard before the lower authorities. The ld.AR further submitted that the details submitted were not considered by the lower authorities who went on to make

M/S. Corporation Bank, Mangaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1), Mangaluru

ITA 1109/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S & Ita No.1680/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2015-16 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan, C.A &For Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

details afresh and allow the claim in the relevant asst. year based on the facts. It is needless to say that reasonable opportunity of being heard should be given to the assessee before deciding the case. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Applicability

M/S. Kotekar Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha, Mangaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(4), Mangaluru

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

ITA 1232/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Kotekar Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha, The Income Tax Officer, 5-4(5), Raitha Sadana, Ward – 2(4), Beeri, Kotekar, Mangalore. Mangalore – 575 022. Vs. Pan: Aaaak2844D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prashanth .G.S, Ca : Shri Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 31-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Order Dated 19.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A), Mangaluru On Following Grounds Of Appeal: Tax Effect In Sl.No. Grounds Of Appeal Rs. A) The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As These Are Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S 1. Case. B) The Appellant Denies Itself Liable To Be Assessed On A Total Income Of Rs.82,17,400/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs.1,99,640/- Under The Facts & Circumstances

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth .G.S, CA
Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

verified by the Ld.AO in accordance with law and following the principles laid down in above referred decisions. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard to be granted to assessee in accordance with law. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Ids Software Solutions India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 537/BANG/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.537/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Ids Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, Vs. Shabari Complex, Ground Floor, Fo Cabin, No.8, Circle – 3(1)(1), Field Marshal Cariappa Road, Ashok Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 025. Pan : Aabci 243O G Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

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

from the list of comparable companies. 19. The TPO is directed to compute the ALP of the international transaction, after affording the assessee opportunity of being heard in accordance with the directions contained in this order. 20. In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed. Pronounced

M/S.Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assesse is partly allowed

ITA 474/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.474/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Vs. Crystal Downs, Embassy Golf Links Business Circle – 3(1)(2), Park, Off Intermediate Ring Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 071. Pan : Aaccg 2435 N Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Madhur Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14A

above observations made by us. Needless to add the TPO will pass orders deciding the issue only after affording the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and to file details/submissions in this regard which shall be duly considered. We hold and direct accordingly.” 17. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision ... directed to compute the ALP in connection with international transaction as per the directions contained in this order, after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 19. As far as ground No.2.1 raised by the assessee is concerned, the issue is with regard to the disallowance of expenses under

M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 is partly allowed

ITA 1308/BANG/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1305 To 1308/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 Dcit, M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Central Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 3824 F Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. G. S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 92C(2)

recorded before the matter was referred to the TPO. 3.2 The order is further bad in law as the appellant was denied of opportunity of being heard before reference to the TPO which is against the principles of natural justice. The authorities below are not justified in holding that ... under section 92CA of the Act, has not complied with the mandatory conditions laid down in the said section and has not afforded opportunity of being heard to the assessee before making a reference to the TPO. Though the learned Counsel for the assessee did not spell

M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 is partly allowed

ITA 1307/BANG/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1305 To 1308/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 Dcit, M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Central Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 3824 F Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. G. S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 92C(2)

recorded before the matter was referred to the TPO. 3.2 The order is further bad in law as the appellant was denied of opportunity of being heard before reference to the TPO which is against the principles of natural justice. The authorities below are not justified in holding that ... under section 92CA of the Act, has not complied with the mandatory conditions laid down in the said section and has not afforded opportunity of being heard to the assessee before making a reference to the TPO. Though the learned Counsel for the assessee did not spell

M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 is partly allowed

ITA 1306/BANG/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1305 To 1308/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 Dcit, M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Central Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 3824 F Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. G. S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 92C(2)

recorded before the matter was referred to the TPO. 3.2 The order is further bad in law as the appellant was denied of opportunity of being heard before reference to the TPO which is against the principles of natural justice. The authorities below are not justified in holding that ... under section 92CA of the Act, has not complied with the mandatory conditions laid down in the said section and has not afforded opportunity of being heard to the assessee before making a reference to the TPO. Though the learned Counsel for the assessee did not spell

M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 is partly allowed

ITA 1305/BANG/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1305 To 1308/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 Dcit, M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Central Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 3824 F Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. G. S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 92C(2)

recorded before the matter was referred to the TPO. 3.2 The order is further bad in law as the appellant was denied of opportunity of being heard before reference to the TPO which is against the principles of natural justice. The authorities below are not justified in holding that ... under section 92CA of the Act, has not complied with the mandatory conditions laid down in the said section and has not afforded opportunity of being heard to the assessee before making a reference to the TPO. Though the learned Counsel for the assessee did not spell

Deepak Valji Karia, Mumbai vs. ITO - 28(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 259/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Bleshri Deepak Valji Karia V. Income Tax Officer – 28(1)(3) Flat No. 2501, B Wing Room No. 327 Maroj Palm Paradise Tower No. 6, 3Rd Floor Palm Beach Road, Sector 17 Vashi Railway Station Building Complex Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 Sanpada, Navi Mumbai 400705 Pan: Ahfpk2679F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya Department By Shri Sanjeev Kashyp

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Page 43 12. Ld. AR submitted several propositions and supported case law, which are given below: - “1. No proper, adequate, fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard provided to the Appellant. Assessee for the above proposition relies on the following case law: - (i). Sona Builders

Shri. Narendranath Mehra, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 4880/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2013-14
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)

future & option trading at Rs. 11,01,917 and have further erred in adding said sum to the returned income without giving an opportunity of being heard. 4. The learned Commission of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in holding that that Colum No. 51 of ITR. 04 is exclusively

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(2), Bangalore vs. Shri. B K Kanakaraju, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2023/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 148Section 153ASection 45

therefore remand the case back to CIT(A) to consider the materials on record and decide the issue accordingly after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Page 5 of 6 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

Triumph International Finance India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Jt. CIT (OSD), CC-7(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 195/MUM/2021[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.195 To 197/Mum/2021 (A.Ys.1998-99, 1999-2000 & 2002-03)

For Appellant: Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

should not be made under section 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. If you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity of being heard in person or through authorized representative you may show cause in writing on or before the said date which will be considered before ... 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