“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

Luxora Infrastructure P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1608/MUM/2020[201-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2022

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234ASection 68

deductor or the collector of its intention so to do and has allowed the assessee or the deductor or the collector a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (4) Where an amendment is made under this section, an order shall be passed in writing by the income-tax authority concerned

Icici Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT -2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result we hold that the learned principal

ITA 737/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Icici Bank Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax-2(3)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, 5 Th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Bandra (East), Room No.552, Mumbai-400 051 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H Appellant By : Ms Arati Vissanji, Ar Respondent By : Shri Nikhil Chaudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2022

For Appellant: Ms Arati Vissanji, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Chaudhary, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(1)Section 263(2)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

frame the order of assessment de novo, keeping in mind the observations made in the foregoing paragraphs. Needless to add, adequate opportunity of being heard will be afforded to the assessee to file details and furnish its explanation.” 08. Therefore, the assessee is aggrieved with the order of the learned

Mr. Subhash Hari Gode, Thane vs. ITO Ward 2 (4), Kalyan

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

ITA 1708/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1708/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2015-16) Mr. Subhash Hari Gode बिधम/ Ito, Ward -2(4) Sakhroli Post Atgaon Tal- Kalyan. Vs. Shahapura Dist- Thane- 421301. Pan No: Bllpg0668M

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar (Sr. AR)

Section 143(2)Section 153Section 2(14)

Learned Assessing Officer failed to consider the submission and explanation made by appellant as well as third party/ independent party without giving enough opportunity of being heard to cross examine and to prove the status of agricultural land and not following the principle of natural justice. 10) The appellant craves ... facts and circumstances and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Thane-3 erred disposing the appeal without giving adequate opportunity of being heard. 3. On the facts and circumstances and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax - (Appeals)-Thane-3 erred in disposing the appeal without

M/S. Vee Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-7, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Vee Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.71, Sona Towers, Millers Road, Bengaluru – 7, Bengaluru – 560 052. Bengaluru. Pan : Aabcv 0100 C Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.2042/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Vee Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, No.71, Sona Towers, Millers Road, Ward – 7[1][2], Bengaluru – 560 052. Bengaluru. Pan : Aabcv 0100 C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Suresh Muthukrishna, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.03.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. Suresh Muthukrishna, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 92C

operating revenue and entire operating cost. Since this change in method would have amounted to enhancement of the income of the appellant, so opportunity of being heard was given to the appellant vide order sheet entry dated 11.08.2017, as to why the proportionate reduction done by the TPO should ... assessee. The TPO/AO is directed to compute the ALP in the light of the directions as given above, after affording assessee opportunity of being heard. 18. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page

Sri. Karur Jayaprakash, Bellary vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bellary

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

ITA 101/BANG/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Deepika, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 234DSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 54F

Natural justice denied to the Appellant The learned CIT(A) has erred in law by passing an order without giving the Appellant the opportunity of being heard, thereby, denying natural justice to the Appellant. 4. Erred in attaching the bank accounts The learned DCIT erred in attaching the bank accounts ... upholding the denial of exemption under section 54F of the Act without considering the submissions made by the Appellant and giving an opportunity of being heard. Further, the learned CIT(A) disregarded the valuation report submitted by the assessee. 6. Interest levied under section 234B of the Act The learned

M/S. Vee Technologies Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 7(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2042/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. Suresh Muthukrishna, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 92C

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Smt. Villoo Zareer Morawala Patel, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1359/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 Smt. Villoo Zareer Morawala Patel, The Deputy C/O. M/S. Avesthagen Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, Regus Ub City Circle – 1(1)(1), Concorde, 15Th Floor, Bangalore. Vs. Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore – 560 001. Pan: Abvpp2706J Appellant Respondent : Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 23-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Filed By Revenue Against Order Dated 07/03/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A) For Assessment Year 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Cit (Appeals), In So Far As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue, Is Opposed To Law & The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition To The Extent Of Rs. 3,42,60,261/- Made By The Assessing Officer

For Respondent: Shri S.V. Ravishankar

Section 148

above directions we remand this issue back to the Ld.AO to consider the issue in accordance with law. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to assist in accordance with law. Accordingly, the grounds raised by revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes. In the result

M/S. Asia Power Projects Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by assessee as well as revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 59/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Asia Power Projects Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 6, Lakeside Residency, 4 Income Tax, Annaswamy Mudaliar Road, Circle – 11 (1), Bangalore – 560 042. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aadca0485B Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Revenue) : Shri Chavali Narayan, Ca & Assessee By Shri Keerthi Narayan, Ca : Shri Srinath Sadanala, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 15-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Order Dated 09.09.2016 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “The Grounds Of Appeal Listed Below Are Without Prejudice To Each Other. 1. That The Order Of The Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (`A0') Dated 31 January 2014 & The Order

Section 115JSection 195Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

Court in case of CIT vs Wipro Finance Ltd. Page 11 of 16 ITA Nos. 59 & 211/Bang/2017 (supra). Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to assessee. Accordingly this Ground raised by revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes. Assessee’s Appeal 10. Ground no.1 ... justice we remand this issue back to the Ld.AO to verify necessary details in accordance with law. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard shall be granted to assessee. Accordingly these grounds raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. 16. Ground No.5 is on respect

M/S Nanobi Data and Analytics Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 472/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Nanobi Data & Analytics Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 1289/1090/E, Commissioner Of 18Th Cross, 3Rd Sector, Income Tax, Vs. Hsr Layout, Circle – 5(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 102. Bangalore. Pan: Aadcn8822F Appellant Respondent : Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Assessee By Advocate : Capt. Pradeep Shoury Arya, Revenue By Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 21-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 11/11/2016 By The Ld.Cit(A)-5, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) In So Far It Is Against The Appellant, Is Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts Of & The Circumstances In The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Not Justified In Not Giving The Appellant A Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard In The Impugned Matter. 3. That Notice Under Section 143(2) Having Been Served After The Expiry Of Time Limit Stipulated Under Section 143(2) Is Time Barred & Hence Bad In Law & The Order

For Respondent: Shri S.V. Ravishankar

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(1)(vii)

Appellant's case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in not giving the Appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the impugned matter. 3. That notice under section 143(2) having been served after the expiry of time limit stipulated under section ... verification. We direct the Ld.AO to consider the claim of assessee under correct facts in accordance with law. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard may be granted to assessee. Accordingly this ground raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. 9. Ground No.6: This ground raised

Altran Technologies India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2904/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2904/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Altran Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., C/O Ernst & Young Llp, The Deputy Ground & 1St Floor, Commissioner Of Income ‘A’ Wing, Divyasree Chambers, Tax, Vs. #11, O’ Shaughnessy Road, Circle – 1 (1)(1), Langford Gardens, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan: Aaaca7125R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 31/10/2017 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 1(1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Altran Technologies India Private Limited (The 'Appellant') Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The 'Id. Ao') Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The 'Act') Pursuant To The Directions Issued By The Hon'Ble Dispute Resolution Panel (`Drp') On The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C

margins computed by the assessee as per CA certificate may be taken for bench marking the transaction. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to assessee. Accordingly this ground raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. 15. Ground No 13 is raised by assessee

Amicrop Management India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by assessee for assessment years

ITA 2171/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 210/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Amicorp Management India Pvt. Ltd., Unit No. 701 & 702, The Income Tax Officer, 7Th Floor, Campus 6B, Ward – 1 (1)(3), Rmz Ecoworld, Sarjapur, Bangalore. Marathalli Outer Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aafca1468C Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 2171/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Amicorp Management India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Unit No. 701 & 702, Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, Campus 6B, Income Tax, Rmz Ecoworld, Sarjapur, Circle – 1 (1)(2), Marathalli Outer Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aafca1468C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Sherry Goyal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 21-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022

For Appellant: Ms. Sherry Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

rigors of adjustments. The Ld.AO is directed to consider the claim of assessee in accordance with law. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard is to be granted to assessee. Accordingly ground no. 2 and additional ground no. 6 raised assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. 10. Ground

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Asia Power Projects Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by assessee as well as revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 211/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Section 115JSection 195Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

Amicrop Management India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1)(3), Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by assessee for assessment years

ITA 210/BANG/2017[2012 -2013]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022

For Appellant: Ms. Sherry Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

Ecl Finance Ltd., Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. - 3(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 899/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C(3)

cases. Subsection (1) of this provision provides that: "The Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, transfer any case from ... Dispute arose in Sahara Hospitality Ltd. vs. CIT (2013) 352 ITR 38 (Bom) as to whether or not giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the transfer of case by the Chief Commissioner, in the backdrop of the use of the word "may1 in the provision

Kotak Mahindra Asset Management Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -Circle-14(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1074/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1074/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Kotak Mahindra Asset बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-14(2)(1) Management Co. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Vs. 27 Bkc, Bandra Kurla 400020. Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaack5576C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Farrokh Irani Revenue By: Shri Shambu Yadav (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 15.04.2021 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “(Nfac)”] In The Relevant A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) (Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Made By The Dy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 14{2) 1 Amounting To Rs.29,07,525 Under Section 14A By Invoking The Provisions Of Rule 8D(2)(Ii).

For Appellant: Shri Farrokh IraniFor Respondent: Shri Shambu Yadav (DR)

Section 14A

during the year and recompute the income accordingly. Needless to ITA. No.1074/Mum/2021 A.Y. 2017-18 say that the Assessing Officer shall give adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Since we followed the order of the Special Bench Tribunal and held that the only the investments yielding dividend income

25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Range -6(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 3085/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2798/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Ito, Range-6(3)(1) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Room No.524, 5Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower 400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3085/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Range-6(3)(1) 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Room No.524, 5Th Floor, Vs. N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400013. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz2076J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala & Madhur Aggarwal Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. Ita. No.2798/Mum/2018 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala & MadhurFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 56(1)

second ingredient is that the order must be one which has come to be passed after the other person was given an opportunity of being heard. The person concerned must be put on notice that the consequence of the income being held as her income is likely to adversely affect

ITO 6(3)(1), Mumbai vs. 25 Fps Media Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 2798/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala & MadhurFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 56(1)

New India Roadways & Sunrise Stone Industries (Jv), Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (2) (4), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6830/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Section 271Section 69C

therefore, please be deleted in appeal. 2. Both the lower authorities erred in passing their respective orders without granting the Appellant an adequate opportunity of being heard. The orders passed by them are in contravention of the principles of natural justice and are hence bad in law.” 2 New India

Bharat Diamond Bourse, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (Exemption)-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2009-10

ITA 916/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bharat Diamond Bourse, Dy. Cit (Exemption)-1, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Bandra East, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaacb 2358 R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. R.K Sinha &For Respondent: Mr. S.G. Menon, DR

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 25Section 254Section 263

aside with direction to the AO to redo the assessment in the light of the above observations and after giving the assessee due opportunity of being heard.” 6. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee filed a paperbook containing page 1 to 21. The assessee also filed an additional

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax - 33 (1), Mumbai vs. Cnp Cotton, Mumbai

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

ITA 6477/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit-33(1), M//S Cnp Cotton, Room No. 711, C-12, Pratyakshkar B/50, Cotton Exchange, Near Bhavan, B.K.C., Bandra, Cotton Green Railway Station, Vs. Mumbai-400051. Cotton Green (East), Mumbai-400033. Pan No. Aaifc 5376 P Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Sunil A. Umap, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Mr. Ankur Shah, Ar Date Of Hearing : 31/01/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Ankur Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sunil A. Umap, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

necessary inquiries if so required. It is also needless to mention that both, the assessee and the Assessing Officer shall be afforded adequate opportunity of being heard. The sole ground raised by the Revenue is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue