← 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

M/S Munna Construction, Jamshedpur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 40/RAN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi17 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: the Id. CIT(A), though the Id.CIT(A) has issued notices on various dates as mentioned in page 4 of the order, however, the assessee could not furnish the detail to substantiate its claim. Also before the Tribunal, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. This being so, in the interest of justice, the issues in these appeals are restored to the file of Id.AO for readjudication. Liberty is granted to the assessee to challenge all legal issues that it so desires to raise before the Assessing O

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Dasgupta, Sr. DR
Section 147

these directions, the issues in boththe appeals are restored to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. Should the assessee not cooperate or provide details in the reassessment proceedings, liberty is granted to Assessing Officer to draw adverse inference

Pritam Jaiswal, Dumka vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(1), Deoghar

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 485/RAN/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi17 Nov 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. Nos.484 & 485/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Pritam Jaiswal…..……………......................…...........................……….……Appellant G1, Lakrapahari Maharo, Jama, Dumka, Jharkhand – 813101. [Pan: Apgpj5477B] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Ranchi………..…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 17, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: Both The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Years 2018-19. Since The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common Therefore The Appeals Are Being Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. First, We Proceed To Deal With Ita No.484/Ran/2024. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Declared His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19 At Rs.4,32,890. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment In The Case Of The Assessee Disallowing The Claim Of Deduction U/S 57 At Rs.52,33,425/- & Accordingly Penalty Proceedings U/S 270A Of The Act Was Initiated.

Section 270ASection 57

interest of justice and fair play, remand back the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee to present his case and to pass a speaking order after considering explanations or submissions submitted by the assessee

Pritam Jaiswal, Dumka vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(1), Deoghar

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 484/RAN/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi17 Nov 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. Nos.484 & 485/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Pritam Jaiswal…..……………......................…...........................……….……Appellant G1, Lakrapahari Maharo, Jama, Dumka, Jharkhand – 813101. [Pan: Apgpj5477B] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Ranchi………..…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 17, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: Both The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Years 2018-19. Since The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common Therefore The Appeals Are Being Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. First, We Proceed To Deal With Ita No.484/Ran/2024. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Declared His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19 At Rs.4,32,890. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment In The Case Of The Assessee Disallowing The Claim Of Deduction U/S 57 At Rs.52,33,425/- & Accordingly Penalty Proceedings U/S 270A Of The Act Was Initiated.

Section 270ASection 57

interest of justice and fair play, remand back the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee to present his case and to pass a speaking order after considering explanations or submissions submitted by the assessee

Garima Construction, Ranchi vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Ranchi

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

ITA 483/RAN/2024[22-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi17 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.483/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Garima Construction………….……………............................……….……Appellant M/11 Bariatu Housing Colony Bariatu Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834009. [Pan: Aasfg5282A] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Ranchi...…...…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 06, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 17, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.07.24 Of The Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2022–23. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate Development. For The Assessment Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of ₹1,87,050. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny On The Basis Of Information Received Through The Criu Portal Pursuant To A Search Operation Conducted On One Shri Naresh Kejriwal, Who Was Identified As A Hawala Entry Operator. Based On Such Information, It Was Alleged That The Assessee Had Received Accommodation Entries Amounting To ₹20,50,000 & ₹1,95,61,000/- During The Relevant Year. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Submitted Details & Supporting Documents To Substantiate The Genuineness Of The Transactions. However, The Assessing Officer Was Not Satisfied With The Explanation

Section 144

fresh consideration. The Assessing Officer shall verify the evidences furnished by the assessee and decide the issue de novo, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remit the matter

Moin Uddin Lasker, Hailakandi vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Guwahati

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

ITA 220/GTY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS (Judicial Member)

Section 250

restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to de- cide the same on merits after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also direct the assessee to cooperate in the as- sessment proceedings failing which adverse inference may be drawn against

Moin Uddin Lasker, Hailakandi vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Guwahati

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

ITA 219/GTY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS (Judicial Member)

Section 250

restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to de- cide the same on merits after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also direct the assessee to cooperate in the as- sessment proceedings failing which adverse inference may be drawn against

Pinku Pal, Algapur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Guwahati

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

ITA 217/GTY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS (Judicial Member)

Section 250

appeals are restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the same on merits after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also direct the assessee to cooperate in the assessment proceedings failing which an adverse inference may be taken against

Kripa Ranjan Debbarma, Agartala vs. ITO, Ward - 1, Agartala

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 122/GTY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Your Honour Against The Rejection Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre Passed On 25.11.2024 & In The Matter Have E-Filed The Appeal In Form 35 Online With Grounds Of Appeal On 16.05.2025 & The Appeal Fee Rs. 10,000 Is Also Paid. However The Above Appeal Has Been Filed With A Delay Of 105 Days As The Appeal Was Supposed To Be Filed By 60 Days From The Date Of Order Ie. 25.11.2024 But Filed On 16.05.2025. Sir, I Am Not Able To Attend To My Regular Duties & Tasks. I Am 72 Years & Am Suffering From Depression & Various Age Related Issues. I Am Under Medical

Section 249(3)Section 250

aside the impugned order with a direction that the Ld. CIT(A) should take up fresh adjudication in this matter, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The matter is accordingly remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT(A). 4. In result, this appeal is allowed

Vision Infracon (India) Pvt Ltd, Rajkot vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)(5), Rajkot

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

ITA 457/RJT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita Nos. 454, 455, 456 & 457/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 बनाम Vision Infracon (India) Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer 130, Golden Plaza, Opp. J P Tower, Vs. Ward-1(2)(5), Rajkot Tagore Road, Gujarat-360001 Pan : Aaccv6558K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

other materials brought on record. Considering the above facts, we note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). We note that the ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee’s case on merits based ... 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, we restore the matter

Vision Infracon (India) Pvt Ltd, Rajkot vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)(5), Rajkot

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

ITA 456/RJT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita Nos. 454, 455, 456 & 457/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 बनाम Vision Infracon (India) Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer 130, Golden Plaza, Opp. J P Tower, Vs. Ward-1(2)(5), Rajkot Tagore Road, Gujarat-360001 Pan : Aaccv6558K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

other materials brought on record. Considering the above facts, we note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). We note that the ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee’s case on merits based ... 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, we restore the matter

Vision Infracon (India) Pvt Ltd, Rajkot vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)(5), Rajkot

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

ITA 455/RJT/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita Nos. 454, 455, 456 & 457/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 बनाम Vision Infracon (India) Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer 130, Golden Plaza, Opp. J P Tower, Vs. Ward-1(2)(5), Rajkot Tagore Road, Gujarat-360001 Pan : Aaccv6558K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

other materials brought on record. Considering the above facts, we note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). We note that the ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee’s case on merits based ... 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, we restore the matter

Vision Infracon (India) Pvt Ltd, Rajkot vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)(5), Rajkot

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

ITA 454/RJT/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita Nos. 454, 455, 456 & 457/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 बनाम Vision Infracon (India) Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer 130, Golden Plaza, Opp. J P Tower, Vs. Ward-1(2)(5), Rajkot Tagore Road, Gujarat-360001 Pan : Aaccv6558K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

other materials brought on record. Considering the above facts, we note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). We note that the ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee’s case on merits based ... 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, we restore the matter

Late Chimanlal Jerambhai Bhagat Legal Heir Minaxi Rakeshbhai Kahar, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-1, Vapi

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

ITA 45/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.45/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 (Hybrid Hearing) Lt.Chimanlal Jerambhai Bhagat Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, बनाम/ Legal Heir Minaxi Rakeshbhai Vapi -396 191 Vs. Kahar, Flat No.104, Lake Castle, Pal, Nr. Jainam, Surat-395 009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aclpb 6752 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Mukesh Mandowara, Ar राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 21/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 50CSection 54B

order of CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to appellant. The appellant may raise the additional ground before CIT(A), who shall decide the same in accordance with law. The appellant

Bhavin Maheshkumar Desai, Na vs. Arivs.ITO, Ward 1, Navsari

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

ITA 384/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethassessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Bhavin Maheshkumar Desai, Vs. Ito, Sanjay Farm, Talav Chora, Dist – Ward – 1, Navsari, Chikhli - 396321 Navsari "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ajepd7118B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sujesh C. Suratwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

Section 147Section 148Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)

served any statutory and show-cause notices by physical mode. The CIT(A) also passed the order without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard, which is against principle of natural justice. He submitted that the assessee could not appear before the AO and CIT(A) due to circumstances beyond ... case before the lower authorities. It is settled law that principles of natural justice requires that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Therefore, without delving much into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order

Jagdishbhai Karamshibhai Bodra, Surat vs. DCIT Circle 1(1)(1), Surat

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

ITA 368/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.367 & 368/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: (2015-16 & 2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Jagdishbhai Karamshibhai Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, बनाम/ Bodra Circle-1(1)(1), Surat, Room No.108, Vs. 37, Diamond Nagar, Mini Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat Hira Bazar, Varachha Road, - 395 001 Surat-395 004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abypb 6267 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/Respondent By Ms. Namita Patel, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing 28/08/2025 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271ASection 69

plead his case. 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. Accordingly, we hold that the interests of justice would be met in case the AO re- examines the entire ... aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of AO for fresh adjudication after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be vigilant and furnish explanation and relevant details before the AO expeditiously

Jagdishbhai Karamshibhai Bodra, Surat vs. DCIT Circle 1(1)(1), Surat

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

ITA 367/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.367 & 368/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: (2015-16 & 2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Jagdishbhai Karamshibhai Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, बनाम/ Bodra Circle-1(1)(1), Surat, Room No.108, Vs. 37, Diamond Nagar, Mini Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat Hira Bazar, Varachha Road, - 395 001 Surat-395 004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abypb 6267 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/Respondent By Ms. Namita Patel, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing 28/08/2025 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271ASection 69

plead his case. 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. Accordingly, we hold that the interests of justice would be met in case the AO re- examines the entire ... aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of AO for fresh adjudication after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be vigilant and furnish explanation and relevant details before the AO expeditiously

Gaurava Mishra, Raipur vs. ITO, Ward 3(2)(8), Surat

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

ITA 104/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.104/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Gaurav Mishra, Vs. Ito, Present Address: - Ward -3 (2)(8), 80, Bayshore Road, Unit No.28, Surat (Costa Del Sol), Singapore – 46992 Permanent Address: 605, Spathik Shilla, Sundar Nagar Purani Basti, So Raipur – 492001, C.G., India "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Amkpm6042J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Veekass Sharma, Ar Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

Section 127Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 250

direction to decide the appeal afresh by adjudicating of the the jurisdictional and legal grounds raised by the appellant after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee. Accordingly, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No.104/SRT/2025/AY 2012-13 Gaurav Mishra 9. In the result, appeal

Chimanbhai Bhikhabhai Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(3)(6), Surat

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

ITA 1044/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1044/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 (Hybrid Hearing) Chimanbhai Bhikhabhai Patel Income Tax Officer , Ward-1(3)(6), बनाम/ S. No.3/2, Koliwad, Adajan Income-Tax Office, Anavil Business Vs. Gam, Adajan, Surat-395 009 Centre, Adajan Hazira Road, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Afypp 4446 E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Appellant By Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 28/08/2025 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 69

erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the I.T Act, 1961 without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals ... filing the appeal in time. It is well settled that principles of natural justice require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Considering the totality of the facts discussed above, we condone the delay in filing of appeal before

Sheetal Bathla, Kota vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2) Kota, Kota

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 215/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shsrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250

well as on the facts of the case in passing the Ex-party order without providing the adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and without considering the material and details in gross breach of law and are bad in law, invalid, illegal and on facts

Pavitar Singh, Jagadhri, Yamunanagar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 653/CHANDI/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 653/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Pavitar Singh, Ito, बना 188, Vuillage Satgoli, Nwr-W-(65)(95) Bhagu Majra, Chandigarh म Jadadhri, Yamunanagar Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Bteps4094J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rachit Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vinod Kumar Chaudhary, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

aside this case back to the file of AO to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.” 3. The Assessing Officer had issued a notice as mentioned in the assessment order; however, despite the issuance of the notice ... order. Such non-consideration of material submissions amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice, as the appellant was denied a fair opportunity of being heard. In regards to above stated grounds and facts, we would like to humbly submit the following submissions: Please refer Para 5.2.2. Page