← 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

Viswanathan Krishnakumar, Aluva vs. Income Tax Officer, Aluva

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

ITA 606/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar P J, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal. Snr AR
Section 147Section 148Section 24Section 250Section 54FSection 80C

shall examine the same and decide all issues afresh in accordance with law. Needless to state, the assessee shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the assessment is completed afresh. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.606/Coch/2025 is allowed for statistical purpose

Thakur Roshan Singh, Bareilly vs. ITO (Exemption) Ward, Bareilly

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

ITA 530/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2018-19 Thakur Roshan Singh, Smirti Sansthan, Vs. Income Tax Officer Vill Chathiya Faizu, Shahpur, Baniyan (Exemption), Ward, Bareilly Faridpur, Bareilly Pan: Aabat8692F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Gurneet Kaur, Adv Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 4.07.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 16.04.2021. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. Because, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Fact & In Law In Confirming The Disallowance Made By Assessing Officer Rs. 60,20,000/- As Building Expenditure For Charitable Purposes, Arbitrarily Rejecting The Explanation Furnished By The Assessee. 2. Because, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Fact & In Law That Such College Is Being Constructed & Run In The Remote Village Where In Due To Various Exigencies & Not Availability Of The Banking Facilities, Payments Are Made In Cash. 3. Because, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Fact & In Law That The Payments Of Construction Had Made Not Being Rejected By The Ld. Ao. However, Due To Ongoing Work It Is A General Practice To Obtain Bills/Settlement Receipts Only On Finalization Of The Work, The Ld. Ao Has Arbitrarily Rejected The Same.

For Appellant: Ms. Gurneet Kaur, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR
Section 143(3)

circumstance of the case, the order of Assessment has been passed in absolute violation of the principles of Natural Justice, without providing adequate opportunity of being heard and therefore deserves to be declared a nullity. 6. The appellant craves for leave to add, modify, amend or delete any other

Chairman Florida Estate B Co Op Housing Society Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, Cir-7, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1986/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Subas P. Bora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Milind Debaje, JCIT –DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250Section 80P

judicial precedents to be placed by the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A). Needless to mention that Ld.CIT(A) shall afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take unnecessary adjournments unless required for reasonable cause. Grounds of appeal

Vaghmi Foundation, Pune vs. CIT(E), Pune

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

ITA 1978/PUN/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1977 & 1978/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: - Vaghmi Foundation, V The Cit Exemption, Property No.6, City Corner, S. Pune. Tingre Nagar, Pune – 411032. Maharashtra. Pan: Aagcv7386P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune Rejecting The Application For Grant Of Registration U/S.12A R.W.S 12Ab & 80G(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As „The Act‟) Dated 30.09.2022 & 22.11.2024 Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. We Treat The Appeal In

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

vide order dated 30/09/2022 2. The learned CIT Exemption, Pune erred in law and on facts in not providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant, as provided u/s 12AB of the ITA, 1961, to submit the details / information. Appellant undertakes to submit all the details/information required ... learned CIT Exemption, Pune if granted another opportunity of being heard. 3. The learned CIT Exemption, Pune; ought to have appreciated that appellant's activities are genuine and bonafide, and as such, eligible for registration u/s 12A of ITA, 1961. 4. Appellant craves leave to add, alter, clarify, explain, modify

Vaghmi Foundation, Pune vs. CIT(E), Pune

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

ITA 1977/PUN/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1977 & 1978/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: - Vaghmi Foundation, V The Cit Exemption, Property No.6, City Corner, S. Pune. Tingre Nagar, Pune – 411032. Maharashtra. Pan: Aagcv7386P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune Rejecting The Application For Grant Of Registration U/S.12A R.W.S 12Ab & 80G(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As „The Act‟) Dated 30.09.2022 & 22.11.2024 Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. We Treat The Appeal In

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

vide order dated 30/09/2022 2. The learned CIT Exemption, Pune erred in law and on facts in not providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant, as provided u/s 12AB of the ITA, 1961, to submit the details / information. Appellant undertakes to submit all the details/information required ... learned CIT Exemption, Pune if granted another opportunity of being heard. 3. The learned CIT Exemption, Pune; ought to have appreciated that appellant's activities are genuine and bonafide, and as such, eligible for registration u/s 12A of ITA, 1961. 4. Appellant craves leave to add, alter, clarify, explain, modify

Asmita Amol Patil, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolhapur

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

ITA 1829/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A D Kulkarni
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 69

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 the requisite details before

Sant Jaganade Maharaj Shikshan Mandal, Sindkhede vs. ITO Exemption Ward 1(1), Nsk, Nahsik

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1754/PUN/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1754/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2025-26 Sant Jaganade Maharaj V The Income Tax Officer, Shikshan Mandal, S. Exemption, Ward-1(1), Sr No.190/1, Plot No.38, Nashik. Dondaicha So., Sindkhede, Dhule – 425408. Maharashrtra. Pan: Aaabs1484Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Piyush Bafna & Shri Aakash Parakh – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde - Dr Date Of Hearing 18/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/11/2025 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(Exemption) Dated 05.11.2024 Rejecting Registration Under Section 12A(1)(Ac) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

satisfied, pass an order in writing rejecting such application and also cancelling its registration after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard; ITA No.1754/PUN/2025 [A] 5.1 Thus, the Act has given mandate to the ld.CIT(E) to verify objects of the Trust and genuineness of its activities. And the ld.CIT

Chairman Florida Estate B Co Op Housing Society Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle 7, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1704/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Subas P. Bora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Milind Debaje, JCIT –DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250Section 80P

judicial precedents to be placed by the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A). Needless to mention that Ld.CIT(A) shall afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take unnecessary adjournments unless required for reasonable cause. Grounds of appeal

Capgemini Technology Services India Limited ( Successor of Aricent Technologies Holdings Limited), Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1260/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Vyomesh PathakFor Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratna Kishore
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 155(18)Section 270ASection 270A(2)Section 270A(6)(a)Section 270A(7)Section 270A(8)Section 270A(9)

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 [section 246 or] section 246A ... 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. xxxx xxxx xxxx 13. The proviso to Sub-section (4) of Section 270AA of the Act makes it amply clear that before

Devtech M2M Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 1230/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1230/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Devtech M2M Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 4Th Floor, Sava House, Opp. 1(1), Pune. New Airport Road, Viman Nagar, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aadcb4376Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Uodol Raj Singh Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.03.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit(A)-Nfac (Hereinafter Referred As Cit(A)) Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding The Assessment Order Passed By Learned Ao-Nfac (Hereinafter Referred To As Learned Ao) Thereby Assessing The Total Income Of The Appellant At Rs.2,22,00,000 As Against Nil Returned Income. 2. Learned Cit(A) Ought To Have Granted An Appropriate Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Appellant For Making Requisite

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Uodol Raj Singh
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69A

appellant at Rs.2,22,00,000 as against NIL returned income. 2. Learned CIT(A) ought to have granted an appropriate opportunity of being heard to the appellant for making requisite 2 submission considering the principle of natural justice. The appellant intends to make all the requisite submissions along with

Bvg Developrs, Pune vs. Income Tax Authority, Pune

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

ITA 1057/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Panda

For Appellant: Ms. Gauri S ManjrekarFor Respondent: Shri A D Kulkarni
Section 143(1)

issue to the file of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) with a direction to decide issue 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 the requisite details before

Bvg Developrs, Pune vs. Income Tax Authority, Pune

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

ITA 1053/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Panda

For Appellant: Ms. Gauri S ManjrekarFor Respondent: Shri A D Kulkarni
Section 143(1)

issue to the file of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) with a direction to decide issue 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 the requisite details before

Birlasoft Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle 8, Pune

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

ITA 1116/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Birlasoft Limited Dcit, Circle – 8, Pune 35 & 36, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Vs. Park, Phase-1, Midc, Hinjawadi, Pune – 411057 Pan: Aaack7308N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24-11-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, V.P: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.08.2023 Of The Ld. Cit(A) / Nfac, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assesse Is A Public Limited Company & Is Engaged In The Business Of Computer & Software Services. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.11.2018 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.95,13,15,400/-. The Return Was Processed By The Cpc & An Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Was Passed On 25.01.2021 Determining The Total Income At Rs.1,00,23,03,750/-. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Assessment Under The E-Assessment Scheme, 2019 On The Following Issues:

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 10A(3)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 27Section 36(1)(va)Section 51Section 80ISection 90

substantiate its case and decide the issue as per fact and law. Needless to say the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC shall give due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The grounds of appeal No.2 and 3 raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 21. Ground ... file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to adjudicate the issue as per fact and law after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds of appeal No.7 and 8 are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes

Calcutta Boys School Educational Society, Kolkata vs. CIT (Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 2282/KOL/2025[2025-2026]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Nov 2025AY 2025-2026

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

Exemption) is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to him for deciding the application afresh after granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, allowing an opportunity to the assessee to correct the section code, if required and seek the reply from the assessee in respect

Lakshi Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited, Contai vs. ITO, Ward 27(1), Haldia

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

ITA 2137/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Nov 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri S. Ghosal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar Mehta, Sr. DR

restoring the issues in all the three appeals to the file of ld. AO for adjudicating afresh after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. Should the assessee not cooperate with the AO in the setting aside proceedings, the AO is at liberty to draw adverse inference

Lakshi Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited, Contai vs. ITO, Ward 27(1), Haldia

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

ITA 2136/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Nov 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri S. Ghosal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar Mehta, Sr. DR

restoring the issues in all the three appeals to the file of ld. AO for adjudicating afresh after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. Should the assessee not cooperate with the AO in the setting aside proceedings, the AO is at liberty to draw adverse inference

Lakshi Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited, East Medinipur vs. ITO, Ward 27(1), Haldia

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

ITA 2135/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Nov 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri S. Ghosal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar Mehta, Sr. DR

restoring the issues in all the three appeals to the file of ld. AO for adjudicating afresh after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. Should the assessee not cooperate with the AO in the setting aside proceedings, the AO is at liberty to draw adverse inference

Intact Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

ITA 825/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 250

based on surmises and conjectures. 2. The orders of the lower authorities are passed in haste, without providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity of being heard. 3. The orders of the lower authorities are passed against the principles of natural justice and are liable to be quashed ... based on surmises and conjectures. 2. The orders of the lower authorities are passed in haste, without providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity of being heard. 3. The orders of the lower authorities are passed against the principles of natural justice and are liable to be quashed

Intact Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

ITA 824/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Zain Ahmed Khan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 250

based on surmises and conjectures. 2. The orders of the lower authorities are passed in haste, without providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity of being heard. 3. The orders of the lower authorities are passed against the principles of natural justice and are liable to be quashed ... based on surmises and conjectures. 2. The orders of the lower authorities are passed in haste, without providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity of being heard. 3. The orders of the lower authorities are passed against the principles of natural justice and are liable to be quashed

Intact Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

ITA 823/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Zain Ahmed Khan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 250

based on surmises and conjectures. 2. The orders of the lower authorities are passed in haste, without providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity of being heard. 3. The orders of the lower authorities are passed against the principles of natural justice and are liable to be quashed ... based on surmises and conjectures. 2. The orders of the lower authorities are passed in haste, without providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity of being heard. 3. The orders of the lower authorities are passed against the principles of natural justice and are liable to be quashed