“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

Ms/. Mayurbhanj Sabaigrass Processing and Multipurpose Marketing Coop-Society Limited, Mayurbhanj vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Baripada

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

ITA 483/CTK/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.483/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-2014) M/S Mayurbhanj Sabaigrass Vs Ito, Ward-1, Baripada Processing & Multipurpose Marketing Coop. Society Ltd, At/Po : Betnoti, Dist: Mayurbhanj Pan No. : Aacam 1144 N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.R.Panda, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi, Dated 25.08.2025 For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld.Ar That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Without Condoning The Delay. It Was The Prayer That Delay May Kindly Be Condoned & The Matter May Be Restored To The File Of The Ld. Ao To Decide The Issue Involved In The Appeal Afresh So That The Assessee Could Be Able To Produce All The Evidence To Substantiate Its Claim. 3. In Reply, Ld Sr.Dr Vehemently Supported The Orders Of The Assessing Officer & Ld. Cit(A). It Was The Submission That If The Issue Is To Be Restored To The File Of Ld. Ao, Then A Cost Should Be Imposed.

For Appellant: Shri B.R.Panda, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

justice, we restore the issues in the appeal to the file of ld. AO for adjudicating afresh after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. However, looking to the non- cooperation of the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings even after issuance of notices to the assessee

S B Electro Structural, Bhubaneswar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 226/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.226/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) S B Electro Structural Vs Pr.Cit, Bhubaneswar 111, Ground Floor, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswasr-751007 Pan No. : Ablfs 8537 Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.K.Mahapatra, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 05/12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld.Pr.Cit, Bhubaneswar-1, Dated 29.03.2024 For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Delayed By 311 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Application Along With Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons, Which Are Not Found To Be False. Accordingly, The Delay Of 311 Days In The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 3. At The Time Of Hearing, It Was Pointed Out To The Ld. Ar That In Para 3.2 Of The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit Has Specifically Mentioned For Non-

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mahapatra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR

justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of Pr.CIT, Bhubaneswar-1 for readjudication afresh after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court

Shyam Hasmukhbhai Ruparel, Rajkot vs. ITO, Ward-1, Junagadh

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

ITA 694/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 694/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Shyam Hasmukhbhai Ruparel, Vs. The Ito, Block No. 12, Shaligram Ward-1, Apartment, Nava Nagarvad, Junagarh Junagadh-362001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bxepr5968N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Darshit Ranpara, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. DR

Section 147

merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. 5. Considering the above facts, I note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). I note that the ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee ... natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted I.T.A No. 694/Rjt/2025 A.Y. 2019-20 3 Shyam Hasmukhbhai Ruparel sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. However, on account of non-compliance attitude of the assessee, I imposed a cost

Lakhabhai Bachubhai Timbadia, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot

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

ITA 685/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 147

merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. 5. Considering the above facts, I note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the Id. ITA No. 685/Rjt/2025 A.Y. 2019-20 Lakhabhai Bachubhai Timbadia CIT(A). I note that ... note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, I restore the matter

Mariappan Austin Prakash, Bengaluru, Kanrnataka vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Intl Txn Circle, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 89/VIZ/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 195Section 9(1)(i)

Appellant, neither the requests nor the submissions made by the Appellant during the assessment proceedings were considered nor was the Appellant granted an opportunity of being heard. 5. That the impugned Assessment Order is erroneous for failing to appreciate that the services rendered by the Appellant were covered within

The Kanaka Mahalakshmi Co Operative Bank Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam

ITA 584/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.584/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) The Kanaka Mahalakshmi Vs. Dcit/Acit, Cooperative Bank Limited, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aacft6489J (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.572/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Acit, Vs. The Kanaka Mahalakshmi Cooperative Bank Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aacft6489J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ms. K. Chudamani, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Shahnawaz Ul Rahman, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 26/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm: The Captioned Cross-Appeals Filed By The Assessee Firm/Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income

For Appellant: Ms. K. Chudamani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shahnawaz UL Rahman

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

observed that as the assessment order was passed under section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act, without affording a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee bank, thus, in the interest of justice, set aside the matter to the file of the AO and allowed the appeal for statistical ... summarily set aside the matter to the file of the AO with a direction to reframe the assessment after affording a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We find it incomprehensible that though the CIT(A) had culled out the contentions that were raised by the assessee before

Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam vs. The Kanaka Mahalakshmi Co Operative Bank Ltd, Visakhapatnam

ITA 572/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. K. Chudamani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shahnawaz UL Rahman

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

Madina Rasool Shaik, Guntur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Narasaraopet

ITA 422/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.422/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18) Madina Rasool Shaik, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Guntur. Ward-1, Pan: Ahfpr3787D Guntur. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate (Hybrid) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 01/12/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm :

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 271ASection 69A

file of the CIT(A) with a direction to readjudicate the same based on a speaking order after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 9. Per contra, Dr. Aparna Villuri, the Learned Senior Departmental Representative, relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 10. We have ... adjudicate the appeal. Needless to say, the CIT(A) shall during the course of the set aside proceedings afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8 Madina Rasool Shaik vs. ITO 15. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms

Venkata Narasimham Thota, Kirlampudi Mandal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kakinada

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 207/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.207/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18) Venkata Narasimham Thota, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Veeravaram, Kirlampudi. Ward-2, Pan: Achpt2895H Kakinada. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Boda Anand Kumar, Ca (Hybrid) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 27/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Boda Anand Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

left open. 16. Before parting, we may herein observe that the CIT(A), while disposing of the appeal, shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 17. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

A & B Associates, Thiruvananthapuram vs. The Income Tax Officer, Thiruvananthapuram

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

ITA 643/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee by directing the AO to -

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Sr. D/R

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

assessment ultimately framed under sections 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act was thus passed without granting the assessee a reasonable and meaningful opportunity of being heard, in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. 13 A&B Associates The elaborate factual narration placed before us demonstrates that the assessee

R. K. Industries Unit- II LLP, Bhavnagar vs. The ACIT, Circle-1, Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1318/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V. Mahadeokarasstt. Year: 2016-17 R.K. Industries Unit- Ii Llp Assistant 3Rd Floor Shree Ram House, Vs. Commissioner Of Khergada Street, Khargate, Income Tax, Circle-1, Bhavnagar – 364 001 Bhavnagar – 364 002 Pan: Aadfr 4127 N (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Hiren Trivedi, Ar Assessee By : Revenue By Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Revenue by Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 36(1)(iii)

ACIT, Circle-1 Asst. Year: 2016-17 5 hearing as provided in Faceless Appeals Scheme more particularly when Appellant has stated that proper opportunity of being heard should be provided before disposing of its appeal. 2. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the case of the Appellant

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 5 Pune, Pune vs. Dipti Narendra Lulla, Pune

ITA 1065/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 143(2)

under consideration. The assessee has not furnished any written submission for the purpose of loan or any justification in spite of providing ample opportunities of being heard. Further the assessee has paid interest of Rs.87,01,674/- on unsecured loans during the year on which TDS was not deducted ... filed any documentary evidences in this regard. Accordingly, the source of squared up of loan remained unverified. Even assessee has been provided ample opportunity of being heard and to explain the issue, however, assessee never filed any explanations in this regard. Assessee also failed to furnish the details regarding

ITO., Ward-9(1), Hyderabad vs. Manisha Dixit, Vanasthalipuram

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

ITA 735/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad05 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rama Murthy T, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69C

shall examine the documents furnished by the assessee and thereafter pass a speaking order in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard. In view of the above, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file

Gavini Giridhara Murari, Tirupati vs. ITO., Ward-1(1), Tirupati

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

ITA 709/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: N ON E

Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Gavini Giridhara Murari compute the income strictly in accordance with law. The assessee shall be afforded a fair and adequate opportunity of being heard and shall cooperate in the proceedings. Failure to do so may entitle the Ld. AO to proceed in accordance with law. 8. In the result

Roma Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd, Anantapur vs. Income Tax Officer., Ward-1, Anantapur

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

ITA 1392/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1392/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Roma Infrastructures Vs. Income Tax Officer India Private Limited, Ward – 1 Anantapur Anantapur Pan:Aaecr8821M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate S Sandhya राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 05/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Advocate S SandhyaFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 147

principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained. Therefore, in the interest of justice, and to provide the assessee a fair opportunity of being heard, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for de novo

Concentrix Catalyst Technologies Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle - 1(1), Hyderabad

ITA 963/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri D Prabhakar Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad 'DB-B‘Bench, Hyderabad श्री रविश सूद, न्यायिक

Damodaram Suresh, Gobichettipalayam vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Erode

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2715/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2715/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Damodaran Suresh, The Income Tax Officer, Prop. Sumy Electronic, Vs. Ward-1(1), No.52, Main Road, Erode. Gobichettipalayam Tamil Nadu - 638 452. [Pan: Aijps3460M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.Girish Kumar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Bipin, C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri (): The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Coimbatore-1 [Pcit] Dated 09.02.2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. There Is A Delay Of 198 Days In Filing This Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed Petition Along With Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating Damodaram Suresh :- 2 -: Therein The Reasons For Belated Filing Of The Appeal. On Perusal Of The Aforesaid Reasons In The Condonation Application, We Are Of The View That There Is Sufficient Cause For Belated Filing Of This Appeal. Hence, We Condone The Delay In Filing This Appeal & Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeals On Merits.

For Appellant: Mr.Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Bipin, C.N, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 4Section 40A(3)

counsel urged that the matter can be restored back to the PCIT for redoing the revision order after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. When this was pointed out to Ld. Senior DR, he could not controvert the above fact situation........... 4. Since none was present before ... PCIT, he passed ex-parte order. I noted that the PCIT should have allowed opportunity of being heard to the assessee and hence, I set aside the order of PCIT and remand the matter back to his file for fresh adjudication". 6. Pursuant to the Tribunal order, the ld.PCIT issued

West Coast Foods Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-13(3)(2), Churchgate

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

ITA 6368/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmathy S. ()

Section 250Section 5

dismissed the appeal by holding that the assessee is not interested in contesting the case. The Ld. AR prays for an opportunity of being heard in the interest of justice. 3.1. Considering the submission of the Ld. AR, we are of the opinion that assessee deserves an opportunity of being ... consider the case in accordance with law having regards to submissions/evidences furnished by the assessee. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, appeal filed

Satbir Kumar Sarlia, Thane vs. Ward 3(2) Thane, Thane

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

ITA 5824/MUM/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmathy S. ()

Section 144Section 154Section 250Section 253Section 269Section 271DSection 27I

That the learned assessing officer has erred in law and not justified in proceeding with the assessment without giving proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard in this matter and the principles of natural justice thereby rendering the order void ab-initio. 6. That interest charged under the Income

Sunny Vijay Lakhani, Mumbai vs. ACIT, 28(3), Mumbai

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6950/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (SR DR)For Respondent: Ms. Ritika Aggarwal

Section 68

both parties; (ii) afford adequate and effective opportunity of being (ii) afford adequate and effective opportunity of being (ii) afford adequate and effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee as well as the Assessing Officer; heard to the assessee as well as the Assessing Officer; heard to the assessee