← 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

Anita Gorver, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-43 (7), New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5565/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2017-18 Anita Grover, Vs. Ito, Ward 43(7), Up-13, 1St Floor, Maurya Enclave, Delhi – 110002 Pitampura, Delhi 34 (Pan: Aappg0883L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115Section 115BSection 68

dispute to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the directions to decide the issues in dispute afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and consider & examine the aforesaid explanations of the assesse alongwith all the relevant documents and evidences filed by the assessee

Ajinkyatara Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit, Koper Khairane vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 28(1)(1), Vashi

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

ITA 3292/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Anikesh Banerjee & Miss. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Sushant AlmeFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan (SR.DR.)
Section 12Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80P

reasoned and speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee shall be granted a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the remanded proceedings. Simultaneously, the assessee is expected to act diligently and extend full cooperation to ensure expeditious disposal of the appeal

Shakuntala Devi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward-3(5), Noida

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5709/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 144Section 234Section 250(6)Section 270ASection 271ASection 69

prayed that the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for decision afresh on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. Ld. DR relied upon the order of ld. CIT(A). 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused ... matter requires to be remitted back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for consideration of the issue afresh by granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and upon considering the evidence on record or any other evidence 4 which the assessee may choose to file

Devendra Kumar Deshmukh, Durg vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

The appeal of the assessee stands dismissed in terms of our aforestated observations

ITA 378/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 378/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263

penalty u/s 271B & 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after making all necessary enquiries required and after providing due and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after considering all the submission?, etc. made and counter- reply submitted by the assessee in a fair and judicious manner ... speaking manner and to initiate penalties u/s 271B & 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after making all necessary enquiries required, with adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid revisionary order u/s 263 of the Act, the assessee has filed present appeal before

Shri Laxmikant Kakubhai Ruparel, Adipur Kutchh vs. The ITO Ward 1, Gandhidham

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

ITA 581/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI (Accountant Member), SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pratik A. Kanabar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Singh, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 147

merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. 5. 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 ... 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

Shri Rajkot District Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Rajkot vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(2), Rajkot

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 196/RJT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.196/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) Shri Rajkot District Co-Operative Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle-1(1), Jilla Bank Bhavan, Kasturba Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Opp. Chaudhary High School, Road, Rajkot-360001 Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afups2094H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Smt. Pallavi, Ld. Cit(Dr) : 06/08/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 04/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay)-2018-19, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax Office [(In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 29.12.2023, Which In Turn Assessment Order Passed By Income Tax Department / Assessing Officer Under Section 144C(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Vide Order Dated 30.03.2023 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee, Are As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Pallavi, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify

Shri Surati Modh Ganchi Gnati Jilla Nanpura Panch, Surat vs. CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 761/SRT/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Nov 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.761/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2025-26) (Hybrid Hearing) Shri Surati Modh Ganchi Gnati Jilla Vs. The Cit(Exemption), Nanpura Panch, Ahmedabad 1-1937, Jamrukh Gali, Nanpura, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabts2889N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Akshay M. Modi, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 25/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/11/2025

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

circumstances of the case as well in law, the learned CIT (Exemptions) has grievously failed to provide proper, lawful and meaningful opportunity of being heard and hence, ex-facie in violation of the principals of natural justice and also to the relevant provisions under the law, and therefore, the order ... before cancelling the registration. It is settled law that principles of natural justice requires that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to plead its case. Therefore, without delving into the merits of the case, the order of ld. CIT(E) is set aside and the matter

A K Patel, Surat vs. ITO, ACIT Circle 3(3), Surat

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

ITA 321/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri P M Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

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 ... back to the file of Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the order

Sir P.T. Sarvajanik College of Science Alumni Association, Surat vs. CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 891/SRT/2024[0]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 115TSection 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)(iii)

file of ld. CIT(E) for fresh order after deciding the application u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and after granting reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant. For statistical purposes, this appeal of the assessee is also treated as allowed. 13. In the result, appeal

Sir P.T. Sarvajanik College of Science Alumni Association, Surat vs. CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 890/SRT/2024[0]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 115TSection 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)(iii)

file of ld. CIT(E) for fresh order after deciding the application u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and after granting reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant. For statistical purposes, this appeal of the assessee is also treated as allowed. 13. In the result, appeal

Shree Salasar Sarees, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(2)(6), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statical purpose

ITA 1154/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1154/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Shree Salasar Sarees Vs. Ito, D-1401, Raghukul Textile Market, Ward – 1(2)(6), Ring Road, Surat – 395002 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abqfs5653Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/11/2025

Section 112Section 143(3)Section 250Section 48Section 50

Tribunal shall not rest its decision on any other ground unless the party who may be affected thereby has had a sufficient opportunity of being heard on that ground.” ITA No.1154/SRT/2024/AY 2015-16 Shree Salasar Sarees 4.1 The learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue

Jeevan Lakshya Foundation, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption Jaipur, Jaipur

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

ITA 1181/JPR/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Nov 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee in the above appeals mainly submitted that the assessee was not provided adequate opportunity of being heard by the ld. CIT(E) and thus the asssessee should be provided one more opportunity to contest the case before

Jeevan Lakshya Foundation, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption Jaipur, Jaipur

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

ITA 1173/JPR/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Nov 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee in the above appeals mainly submitted that the assessee was not provided adequate opportunity of being heard by the ld. CIT(E) and thus the asssessee should be provided one more opportunity to contest the case before

Arhamgachchh Sthanakvasi Jain Sampraday Trust, Ahmedabad vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 409/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Nov 2025

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.409/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : Na Arhamgachchh Sthanakvasi The Cit (Exemption) बनाम/ Jain Sampraday Trust Vejalpur 380 015 V/S. 1, Paras Chambers, Opp. Sagar Hotel Nr. Ujala Circle, Sarkhej Ahmedabad – 382 210 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaeta 9012 C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kamal Bhambhani, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.P. Rastogi, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 24/12/2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Kamal Bhambhani, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 250

under section Arhamgachchh Sthanakvasi vs. CIT (E) AY : NA 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by not providing proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant trust. 3. Ld. CIT(E) on facts as also in law in by not granting registration under section ... quashed, and that the matter be remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after providing a proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard. 6. In response, Ld. DR placed reliance on the observations made by CIT(Appeals) in the appellate order. 7. We have heard the rival contentions

Navneetbhai Ramanlal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 223/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.223/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Navneetbhai Ramanlal Patel The Ito बनाम/ 19, New Ambica Park Society Ward-2(1)(2) V/S. D Cabin Sabarmati Ahmedabad – 380 051 Ahmedabad – 380 019 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aqzpp 2479 D (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hiren Trivedi, Ar Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 14/10/2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-2017. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Trivedi, ARFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

passed the appellate order without providing video 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 the its appeal. ITA No223/Ahd/2025. Navneetbhai Ramanlal Patel Asst. Year

Sobransingh Tahrasrih Parihar, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-7(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1704/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 270ASection 37Section 40

from the date of receipt of this order. Subject to the payment of cost, the Ld. CIT(A) is directed to allow another opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to make compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) in the course of set aside proceeding

Rameshbhai Kalabhai Patel, Kheda vs. Asst. Unit, Income Tax Dept. ( Present Juri.- Ward 1, Nadiad ), Kheda

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

ITA 1532/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Adjournment ApplicationFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

gopalbhatt67@yahoo.co.in. On facts and circumstances of the case, the lower authorities please be directed to hear the Appellant again by providing proper opportunity of being heard and impugned addition made be deleted accordingly. The same please be held now. 2. The Learned CIT (Appeals) has erred

Rameshbhai Kalabhai Patel, Kheda vs. Asst. Unit, Income Tax Dept. ( Present Juri.- Ward 1, Nadiad), Kheda

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

ITA 1531/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Adjournment ApplicationFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

gopalbhatt67@yahoo.co.in. On facts and circumstances of the case, the lower authorities please be directed to hear the Appellant again by providing proper opportunity of being heard and impugned addition made be deleted accordingly. The same please be held now. 2. The Learned CIT (Appeals) has erred

Bhoomi Manas Bhatt, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1208/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 69ASection 69C

days from the date of receipt of this order. Subject to payment of cost, the Ld. CIT(A) is directed to allow another opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to make compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) in the course of set aside proceeding

Savli Taluka Secondary and Higher Secondary Employees Co Op. Credit Society Limited, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(2), Vadodara

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

ITA 1772/AHD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1772/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2019-20 Savli Taluka Secondary & The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Higher Secondary Employees Ward-1(2)(2) V/S. Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd. Vadodara – 390 007 18, Rayakaka Park Savli Desar Road Vadodara – 391 770. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aafas 6647 D (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanket Bakshi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Bakshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Sr.DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 272(1)(d)Section 68

learned CIT(A) and the learned AO erred in fact and in law in making the order without giving a proper opportunity of being heard. Disallowance of Deduction u/s, 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act 8. The learned CIT(A) and the learned AO erred in fact ... Supreme Court held that where the assessment was completed without providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard, the proper course would be to set aside the assessment and direct the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order after affording a reasonable opportunity. Similarly, in ITO v. M. Pirai