“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

Mohinder Singh, Ropar, Punjab vs. ITO Ward-2(2), Punjab

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1454/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

then by Worthy CIT(A) deserves to be quashed since the same have been framed in extreme haste and without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 6. That the appellant craves leave for any addition, deletion or amendment in the grounds of appeal on or before

Durai Mahendran, Tiruvallur vs. ITO, Ward-2, Tiruvallur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 963/CHNY/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:963/Chny/2026 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & S.A. No. 73/Chny/2026 [In Ita No. 964/Chny/2026] Shri Durai Mahendran, The Income Tax Officer, No.334, Vinayakar Koil Street, Vs. Ward 2, 89, Veppampattu, Tiruvallur Tiruvallur – 602 024. Pan: Crmpm 1526L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Jharna B. Harilal, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. T.Mythili, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.03.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 30.01.2026 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-18. Ita No.963/Chny/2026 & :- 2 -: Sa No.73/Chny/2026 2. At The Very Outset, We Notice That The First Appellate Authority’S (Faa) Order Is Ex-Parte, Since There Was No Compliance From The Assessee To The Five Notices Issued From The Office Of The First Appellate Authority. Further, We Also Note That The Assessment Has Been Completed On Best Judgment Basis U/S.144 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Ms. Jharna B. Harilal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. T.Mythili, JCIT

Section 144Section 250Section 69A

substantiate the source of cash deposits. The AO shall examine the same and decide the issue in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. It is ordered accordingly

Venkatesh, Tirunelveli vs. ITO, Tirunelveli

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 889/CHNY/2026[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Mar 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:889/Chny/2026 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 & S.A. No. 67/Chny/2026 [In Ita No. 889/Chny/2026] Shri Venkatesh, The Income Tax Officer, No.34-A, Baskaran Street, Vs. Ward 4, Tirunelveli Town S.O., Tirunelveli. Tirunelveli – 627 006. Pan: Akfpv 8799N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri P. Gunasekaran, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. T.Mythili, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.03.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 17.12.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2019-20. Ita No.889/Chny/2026 & :- 2 -: Sa No.67/Chny/2026 2. At The Very Outset, We Notice That The First Appellate Authority’S (Faa) Order Is Ex-Parte, Since There Was No Compliance From The Assessee To The Five Notices Issued From The Office Of The First Appellate Authority. Further, We Also Note That The Assessment Has Been Completed On Best Judgment Basis U/S.144 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri P. Gunasekaran, CAFor Respondent: Ms. T.Mythili, JCIT

Section 144Section 148ASection 250Section 69

investment. The AO shall examine the ITA No.889/CHNY/2026 & :- 5 -: SA No.67/CHNY/2026 same and decide the issue in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly

Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 22(1), Chennai vs. Ezhumalai, Thirukazhukundram

ITA 4108/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.4108/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Income Tax Officer, V Ezhumalai, Non Corporate Ward- S 1123, Ponpatharkoodam, 22(1), Tambaram Gangai Amman Koil Street, Thirukazhukundram, Chengalpattu – 603405 Pan: Acipe8113C Appellant/ Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. V Aswathy – Jcit Date Of Hearing 18/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12/03/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi

Section 120Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

matter may be remanded to the file of ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. On the other hand, none appeared on behalf of the Assessee despite the issued service of notice of hearing

Mundaganamane Group Gramagala Seva Sahakari Sangha Niyamit Mundaganamane, Sirsi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sirsi

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

ITA 2843/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Ms. Smitha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing

Section 250Section 80P

first issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte without providing a proper opportunity of being heard. Page 2 of 6 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee, a primary agricultural cooperative society, is engaged in several activities ... before us submitted that the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte without granting a proper and effective opportunity of being heard. It was contended that the assessee is a primary agricultural co-operative society carrying on various activities such as providing credit facilities

Udaya Souharda Co-Operative Society Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2472/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Tharun Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT (DR)

Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

matter afresh in the light of the above discussion and the judicial precedents referred to herein and as per law, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 11. In the result, the appeal

Mr. Yogesh Santosh Gulvi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office Ward 1(4), Mumbai

Accordingly Ground No.1 to 14 raised by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 554/MUM/2026[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: this tribunal on the following grounds as under:- 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without deciding the case on merits and without appreciating the facts submitted in the Grounds of Appeal.

For Appellant: None

Section 144Section 147Section 69A

additional evidence filed by the Assessee after calling for a remand report from the Assessing Officer and after granting the Assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard. In terms of the aforesaid, the grounds raised by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purpose without returning any findings on merits. Accordingly Ground

Tehmina K Katrak Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 2(4), Mumbai

ITA 549/MUM/2026[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Section 11Section 119Section 139Section 154Section 92E

Assessing Officer erred in invoking the provisions contained in Section 154 of the Act; and that too without granting the Assessee any opportunity of being heard. It is not the case of the Revenue that the Assessee had acted in a malafide manner. On the other hand, the material

Shanker Mirchumal Jethani, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 23(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 8383/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Namrata Chande (virtually present)For Respondent: Shri S. Anbuselvan (SRAR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

upheld the order passed by the Ld. AO. 3. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee was not afforded a proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard before the Ld. CIT(A). She therefore prayed that the matter may be restored to the file ... issues are kept open for fresh consideration by the Ld. CIT(A). Needless to state, the assessee shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard during the set-aside proceedings, and any evidence sought to be filed shall be considered in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed

Rachana Kirti Doshi, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7679/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarrachna Kirti Doshi Vs. Ito, Ward 19(3)(1), Flat No. 44, 4Th Floor, Mumbai Gitanjali, Co Op Housing Piramal Chamber, Society, 73/75, Walkeshwar Lalbaug, Parel Road, Mumbai- 400012 Mumbai - 400006 Pan/Gir No. Aempd4452R (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajesh Shah Revenue By Shri Brajendra Kumar (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing 11.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 23.12.2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Following Grounds Are Reproduced Below: “1. A) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Ground Of Re-Opening Of The Assessment. The 2 Appellant Pleads That The Ao Wrongly Re-Opened The Assessment.

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 250Section 68

form of 4 unsecured loans taken from the following parties, the details of which are contained herein below: 4. Therefore, after providing an opportunity of being heard and seeking a reply from the assessee, the AO made additions under Section 68 of the Act. Subsequently

The Ludhiana Lic of India Employees Co-Operative Non-Agricultural Thrift & Credit Society Limited, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Ludhiana

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

ITA 970/CHANDI/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: None (submissions)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and thereafter pass a speaking order. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Aman Thukral, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Ludhiana

Accordingly, Additional Ground No. 1 is allowed for statistical

ITA 886/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Pankaj Bhalla, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Mangal, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250(6)Section 69C

Delhi has erred in passing the appeal order without affording the 886-CHD-2024 5 appellant a just, proper, adequate, effective and meaningful opportunity of being heard and explain his case. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income declaring a total ... shall give opportunity to assessee to examine these two persons, if so demanded by the assessee . 47. The Assessing Officer shall afford adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law. Accordingly, Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

Vibhuti Krunal Patel, Sabarmati vs. ITO Ward 2(1)(2) Ahmedabad, Vejalpur

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

ITA 1369/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Tr Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Chavda, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 147Section 148

ought not to have upheld the invocation of the provisions of Section 115BBE without passing a speaking order and / or granting opportunity of being heard on the invocation of the specific provision. It is therefore prayed that the addition of Rs.2,69,67,981 made by the AO and upheld

ACIT, Circle-1, Solapur vs. Yuvraj Patil and Company, Talsangi

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

ITA 2803/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2023-24 Acit, Circle – 1, Yuvraj Patil & Company Solapur Vs. Talsangi, Mangalwedha, Solapur – 413305 Pan: Aaafy4589Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sharad A Shah Department By : Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 10-03-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-03-2026

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl CIT DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194Q

file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the issue afresh and in accordance with law after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the Revenue are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result

Rama Devi, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward- 8(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 825/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia(In आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.825/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Rama Devi, Vs Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-8(2), Pan: Agepd7263N Hyderabad. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) करदाताका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate Assessee Represented By राज"वका""त"न"ध"व/ : Ms Reema Yadav, Sr. Ar Department Represented By सुनवाईसमा"तहोनेक""त"थ/ : 03/03/2026 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/ : 11/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Rama Devi (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 08/11/2023 For The Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2017-18. Rama Devi Vs. Ito 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 144Section 69A

adjudicated on merits either by the Ld. AO or by the Ld. CIT(A). The principles of natural justice require that a reasonable opportunity of being heard should be granted before any adverse decision is taken. Though the Ld. DR has submitted that adequate opportunity had already been granted ... restore the matter to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication. The Ld. AO shall provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issues afresh in accordance with law. The assessee is at liberty to file all relevant documentary evidence before

Ravipati Radha Bai, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward 7(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 2022/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.2022/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Ravipati Radha Bai [[ The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad – 500 028. Ward-7(1), Vs. Telangana. Hyderabad – 500 084. Pan Aaihr4276B (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By : Sri H Srinivasulu, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Ms Reema Yadav, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 11.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Appellant: Sri H Srinivasulu, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS Reema Yadav, Sr. AR

Section 144Section 250

made by the Assessing Officer under the HUF PAN. Needless to say, before passing the fresh order the assessee be given an appropriate opportunity of being heard. 7. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 11 ITA.No.2022/Hyd./2025 Order pronounced in the open Court

Dayachary Ponnekanti, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1985/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia(In आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1985/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Year:2016-17) Dayachary Ponnekanti, Hyderabad. Pan: Ahspp5496L Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) करदाताकाप्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्वकाप्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By सुनवाईसमाप्तहोनेकीतिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/ Date Of Pronouncement Shri H. Srinivasulu, Advocate Shri Mathivanan S A, Sr. Ar 02/03/2026 11/03/2026 Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Dayachary Ponnekanti, ("The Assessee"), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)") Dated 08/10/2025 For The A.Y.2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 143Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad 'A' Bench, Hyderabad श्री विजय पाल राव, उपाध्यक्ष

Hyderabad Science Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Exemption Circle 1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1128/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1128/Hyd/2024 Assessment Year 2015-2016 Hyderabad Science Society, Hyderabad. The Dcit, Vs. Pin - 500 028. Exemption Circle-1(1), Telangana. Hyderabad. Pan Aaath3789F (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Sri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca For Revenue : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Sri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)

occurrence or otherwise of any specific violation, pass an Order in writing cancelling the registration, after affording a reasonable 13 ITA.No.1128/Hyd./2024 opportunity of being heard to such trust or institution for such previous year and all subsequent previous year. Thus, the learned DR has submitted that the cancellation ... case may be, he shall pass an order in writing cancelling the registration of such trust or institution after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard." 6.2. This section has been amended by Finance Act, 2022 w.e.f. 1-4-2022 as follows: 12AB(4): Where registration or provisional registration

C-2480 Elayangaram Paccs, Tirupattur vs. ITO, Tirupathur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4037/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.4037/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 C-2480 Elayanagaram Assessment Unit, Primary Agricultural V Nfac, Income Tax Cooperative Credit Society, S. Department, Elayanagaram, Tirupattur. Ito-Che-W- Pan: Aahfc7142G (146)(2), Chennai. Appellant Respondent Assessee By Mr. Shyam Sundar – Ca Revenue By Ms. V Awasthay – Jcit Date Of Hearing 17/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11/03/2026 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Delhi [‘The Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69Section 80P(2)(a)

corresponding penalty proceedings, and remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after verifying the records and affording due opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. 4  The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing ... matter back to the file of ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication of the issues in appeal on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant society. 8 9. In the result, appeal of the Assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced on this 11th

Ufx Ventures Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-3(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 2273/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. Shilpa Susan Kuriachan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. T. Mythili, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37

made to directors and key managerial personnel. The Assessing Officer shall recompute the disallowance, if any, in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to co-operate with the proceedings and furnish necessary details as may be called ... file of the Assessing Officer to recompute the disallowance of interest expenditure in accordance with the directions given above after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 26. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is partly- allowed for statistical purposes. 27. In the result, the appeals filed