← 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

Dj Amusements, 8/58 8/58, Chathankandath House vs. Income Tax Officer, Palakkad

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

ITA 758/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Hon’Ble Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.758/Coch/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dj Amusements, The Income Tax Officer, Mankara P.O, Vs. Ward-1 & Tps, Palakkad – 678 614. Palakkad. Kerala Pan: Aahfd 2211P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Sivadas Chettoor, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Smt Leena Lal, Snr Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ():

For Appellant: Shri Sivadas Chettoor, C.A ""For Respondent: Smt Leena Lal, Snr AR
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 139

remit the matter back to his file with a direction to pass a fresh speaking order after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate in the remand proceedings and furnish any additional evidence, if so required. DJ Amesements

Distt Woman & Child Dev Officer Vidish, Vidisha vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS- 2), Bhopal

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 253/IND/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 194CSection 201(1)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 4

daily routine work and correspondence are done in physical paper form and the staff does not check emails at regular intervals. Hence, opportunity of being heard was not provided to the assessee and the same is against principal of natural justice. 3. That the Learned Assessing Officer erred in holding

Distt Woman & Child Dev Officer Vidisha, Vidisha vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS-2), Bhopal

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 252/IND/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 194CSection 201(1)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 4

daily routine work and correspondence are done in physical paper form and the staff does not check emails at regular intervals. Hence, opportunity of being heard was not provided to the assessee and the same is against principal of natural justice. 3. That the Learned Assessing Officer erred in holding

Distt Woman & Child Dev Officer Vidisha, Vidisha vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS-2), Bhopal

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 251/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 194CSection 201(1)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 4

daily routine work and correspondence are done in physical paper form and the staff does not check emails at regular intervals. Hence, opportunity of being heard was not provided to the assessee and the same is against principal of natural justice. 3. That the Learned Assessing Officer erred in holding

Samit Garg, Noida vs. ITO 3(5), Lucknow

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

ITA 435/LKW/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144BSection 68

Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo speaking order on merits of the case in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. (D) In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open court

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Lucknow vs. M/S. U.P. State Construction & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, Lucknow

ITA 617/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 251Section 263

section 263 of the Act 1961. Therefore, by invocation of Explanation in the order without confronting the assessee and giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee is not appropriate and sustainable in law. The procedural irregularity vitiates the proceedings, as it deprives the assessee of a reasonable opportunity ... file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to pass de novo order, in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. (D) ITA No. 371/LKW/2017 and CO No. 17/LKW/2017 pertain to A.Y. 2012-13, in which the following grounds have been raised

U.P Samaj Kalyan Nirman Nigam Limited (Now Known As U.P State Construction and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.), Lucknow vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Lucknow

ITA 67/LKW/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 251Section 263

section 263 of the Act 1961. Therefore, by invocation of Explanation in the order without confronting the assessee and giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee is not appropriate and sustainable in law. The procedural irregularity vitiates the proceedings, as it deprives the assessee of a reasonable opportunity ... file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to pass de novo order, in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. (D) ITA No. 371/LKW/2017 and CO No. 17/LKW/2017 pertain to A.Y. 2012-13, in which the following grounds have been raised

Aahana Sales Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. PCIT(Central), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 878/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Aahana Sales Private Limited Pr.Cit(Central) 3, Bhavya Enclave Vs. Ahmedabad. Vidhya Vihar Society Usmanpura Ahmedabad. Pan : Aajca 1231 B (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Vivek Chavda, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.P. Rastogi, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11/11/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Chavda, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)

jurisdiction under section 263, the statute expressly mandates that the Principal Commissioner may revise an order “after giving the 5 assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary.” The second limb of this requirement, namely making necessary inquiry

Nirmaben Sureshkumar Patel, Vapi vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Mehsana

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

ITA 2053/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263

aside and the matter is restored to the file of the PCIT to decide afresh in accordance with law and after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 21. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced in Open Court

Gourav Bhagwandas Agarwal, Pune vs. ITO Ward 8(1), Pune

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

ITA 894/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Digambar SurwaseFor Respondent: Shri Manish M. Mehta
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 69A

direction to decide the same on merits as per fact and law, after giving one final 6 ITA No.894/PUN/2025, AY 2017-18 opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is at liberty to raise the additional ground before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC who shall admit and adjudicate

Parag Dattatray Inamdar, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Pune

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

ITA 2378/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148ASection 250

After necessary verification, Ld.JAO can decide in accordance with law. Needless to mention that Ld. JAO shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee for submitting further details, if any. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take unnecessary adjournments unless 5 ITA.No

Shrimadurjit Seva Kendra, Pune vs. The ITO, Ward 8(3), Pune

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

ITA 2276/PUN/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2276/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shrimadurjit Seva Kendra, V The Income Tax Officer, S.No.117/1, Chowisawdi, S. Ward-8(3), Pune. Haveli, Pune – 412105. Pan: Absfs4340L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde –Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: In This Case, Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Additional/Joint Commisioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Panaji Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2013-14 Dated 31.07.2025. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Addl./Jt.Cit(A), Panaji Erred In Law & On Facts In Dismissing Appellant'S Appeal Without Granting Sufficient Opportunity Of Being Heard. Appellant Assures To Make All The Compliances Before The

Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234ESection 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

appeal : “1. The learned Addl./Jt.CIT(A), Panaji erred in law and on facts in dismissing appellant's appeal without granting sufficient opportunity of being heard. Appellant assures to make all the compliances before the ITA No.2276/PUN/2025 [A] learned Addl../Jt. CIT(A), Panaji if another opportunity of being hear

Savita Mitkari, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Pune

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

ITA 2193/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2193/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Savita Mitkari, V The Income Tax Officer, Flat No.302, G4, Gangadham S Pmt Phase Ii, Market Yard, Building Pune 411037. Commercial Complex, Swargate, Pune 411037. Pan: Arppm8052L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Ca Sagar Kale Shri Arvind Renge – Addl.Cit(Dr) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 06/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal) [Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2011-12 Dated 30.07.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Act, Dated 30.12.2018. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

without discussing each and every ground and merits of the case and merely dismissed for non-compliance. Hence, ld.AR requested for one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Submission of ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) : 3. The ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer

The Satara Zilla Krishi Bank Karmachari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd, Satara vs. ACIT, Satara, Cir-Satara

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

ITA 2156/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2155 & 2156/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2020-21 The Satara Zilla Krishi Bank Karmachari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd., Ajinkya Complex, 512, Ch. Shivaji Road, Camp, Sadar Bazar, Satara-415001 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Satara Circle, Vs. Satara Pan: Aaaat1502B अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Department By : Date Of Hearing : Date Of Pronouncement : Ms. Renuka Arunrao Ghatge Shri S. Sadananda Singh 11-11-2025 28-11-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 15.07.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)”/“Nfac"] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay") 2020-21. For The Sake Of Convenience, Both These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 41(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(b)Section 80P(2)(d)

made by the assessee during the course of fresh proceedings before him as per fact and law, after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to remain vigilant in accessing the email(s) and timely respond to the notices of hearing issued

The Satara Zilla Krishi Bank Karmachari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd, Satara vs. ACIT, Satara, Cir-Satara

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

ITA 2155/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2155 & 2156/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2020-21 The Satara Zilla Krishi Bank Karmachari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd., Ajinkya Complex, 512, Ch. Shivaji Road, Camp, Sadar Bazar, Satara-415001 Pan: Aaaat1502B अपीलार्थी / Appellant Assessee By : Department By : Date Of Hearing : Date Of Pronouncement : Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Satara Circle, Vs. Satara प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Ms. Renuka Arunrao Ghatge Shri S. Sadananda Singh 11-11-2025 28-11-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 15.07.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)”/“Nfac"] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay") 2020-21. For The Sake Of Convenience, Both These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 41(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(b)Section 80P(2)(d)

made by the assessee during the course of fresh proceedings before him as per fact and law, after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the The assessee is also hereby directed to remain vigilant in accessing the email(s) and timely respond to the notices of hearing issued

Shree Vishal Jewellers, Pune vs. DCIT Circle 9 Pune, Akurdi Pune

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

ITA 1975/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1975/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shree Vishal Jewellers, Dcit, Circle-9, Pune Kohinoor Arcade, Nigdi, Pune-411044 Vs. Pan : Achfs8052R अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sushant Padhye Department By : Shri Udaya Bhaskar Jakke Date Of Hearing : 11-11-2025 Date Of 28-11-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.07.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Error In Additions Of Rs.6,25,94,300/- In Respect Of Provision Of Section 68 Of The Act. The Ao Erred In Appreciating The Complexity Of Assessee'S Business & Made Addition Based On Conjecture Rather Than Evidence. Addition Was Made Merely By Treating Excess Balance Of Cash As Unexplained Credits Thereby Ignoring The Circumstances In Which Such Cash Was Recorded. 2. Error In Additions Of Rs.82,96,610/- In Respect Of Provision Of Section 68 Of The Act. The Ao Made An Addition In Haste Without Completely Understanding The Facts Of The Case. This Addition Belies A Sense Of Proportion. A. Addition Of Rs.46,96,610/- Of Unsecured Loan Forwarded By Mrs. Sangeeta Sonigara: The Officer Erred In Appreciating The Fact That The Loan Could Have Been Given By The Said Person From Gifts Received Or Through Other Exempt Income Earned In The Past. Merely Because The Person Doesnt Not Have Sufficient Income In The Immediately Previous Years Does Not Invalidate The Genuineness Of The Unsecured Loan. B. Addition Of Rs.37,00,000/- Of Unsecured Loan Forwarded By Mr. Ganesh Nadha: The Said Person Is A Third Party. Unsecured

For Appellant: Shri Sushant PadhyeFor Respondent: Shri Udaya Bhaskar Jakke
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

assessee back to his file with a direction to decide the same on merits as per fact and law, after giving one final opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to provide the latest and active email id to the Department for receiving notices

Bapu Foundation for Learning on Mind and Discourse, Pune vs. CIT Exemptions, Pune

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

ITA 185/PUN/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2024-25

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

Exemption), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. Basic principles of natural Justice being opportunity of being heard Audi alteram partem was not exercised by CIT Exemptions. Proceeding were initiated by CIT Exemptions against renewal applications of 12A AND 80G registrations filed wherein ... Exemptions, Pune. 6. Similar grounds have been raised in ITA No.185/PUN/2025 which read as under: 1. Basic principles of natural justice being opportunity of being heard - Audi alteram partem was not exercised by CIT Exemptions. Proceeding were initiated by CIT Exemptions against renewal applications of 12A AND 80G registrations filed

Mrinalini Jayant Puranik, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Pune

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

ITA 1790/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20 Mrinalini Jayant Puranik Ito, Ward 2(2), Pune Flat 14, Khagol Coop Society, Vs. S.No.38/1, Panchavati, Pashan, Pune – 411008 Pan: Almpp5163E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Kulkarni Department By : Shri A D Kulkarni Date Of Hearing : 26-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Suhas KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri A D Kulkarni
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 274

order accepting or rejecting such application: Provided that no order rejecting the application shall be passed unless the assessee has been given an opportunity of being heard. (5) The order made under sub-section (4) shall be final. (6) No appeal under section 246A or an application for revision under

Dnyaneshwar Ekanath Balwadkar, Pune vs. ITO WD- 2(2) Pune, Pune

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

ITA 1770/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Dnyaneshwar Ekanath Balwadkar Ito, Ward 2(2), Pune Vs. Balewadi Haveli, Pune – 411045 Pan: Athpb4978N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri A D Kulkarni Date Of Hearing : 26-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri A D Kulkarni
Section 147Section 148

delay in filing of the appeal by the assessee and decide the appeal on merit as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to participate in the appeal proceedings and submit 5 the requisite details before

Vikram Digvijay Kapadia L/H Late Shri. Digvijay Babubhai Kapadia, Nashik vs. ACIT Circle 1, Nashik

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

ITA 1730/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकरअपऩलसं. / Ita No.1730/Pun/2025 निर्धारणवषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vikram Digvijay Kapadia V Acit, Legal Heir Of Late Shri S. Circle-1, Nashik. Digvijay Babubhai Kapadia, Babubhai House, Kulkarni Colony, Sharanpur Road, Nashik – 422002. Maharashtra. Pan: Afzpk8616E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Ca Chinmayy Pathak – (Virtual) Revenue By Smt. Saumya Pandey Jain- Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 18/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed Legal Heir Mr.Vikram Digvijay Kapadia Of Late Shri Digvijay Babubhai Kapadia Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018-19 On 10.04.2024 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Dated

Section 10Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 143(3)Section 250

hence, it is prayed that the matter may please be set aside to the file of the A.O. by granting one more opportunity of being heard in the interest of justice. 4] Without prejudice to the above grounds, the appellant submits that the addition of Rs.35,94,779 made