← 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

Confraria De N Sra Do Rosario Da Capela De Neura, Neura vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemption), Bengaluru

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 237/PAN/2025[12AB]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji06 Mar 2026

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Prashanth Jain [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner’. It shall be worthy to also underline that the opportunity of being heard should be real, reasonable and effective and same should not be empty formalities, it should not be a paper opportunity. In view

Kamlesh Sharma, Raipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 70/RPR/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 70/Rpr/2026 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2020-21) Kamlesh Sharma, House No.109, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Harihant Nagar, Sarona, Tax, Circle-1(1), Central Revenue Ring Road No.1, Raipur-492001, Cg Building, Civil Lines, Raipur-492001 Pan: Bppps4514C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None (Adjournment Petition Filed) राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 06/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2020-21 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.12.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [‘Cit(A)’], National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’), Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Petition filed)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 249(3)Section 250Section 57Section 69

valid. After thoughtful consideration of the impugned order, we are unable to infer that whether the Ld. CIT(A) has provided any specific opportunity of being heard to the assessee before rejecting the delay condonation petition on the reasoning that the said petition was not duly corroborated with supporting evidences ... After thoughtful consideration of the material available on the record, we are of the view that the appellant assessee deserves reasonable opportunity of being heard to make shortcomings or non-compliance if any. Therefore, considering all facts of the case. afore-stated observations and without offering any comment on merit

Vinod Kumar Kailashchandra Verma, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Raipur

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

ITA 69/RPR/2026[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 69/Rpr/2026 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vinod Kumar Khailashchandra Verma, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), House No.496/9, Avanti Vihar, Sector-2, Central Revenue Building, Telibandha, Raipur-492001 (C.G.) Civil Lines, Raipur, C.G. 492001 Pan: Aanpv5964B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None. (Adjournment Petition Filed.) राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 06/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

For Appellant: None. (Adjournment petition filed.)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 69A

delay. After thoughtful consideration of the impugned order, we are unable to infer that whether the Ld. CIT(A) has provided any specific opportunity of being heard to the assessee before non- admitting the appeal on the issue of limitation. The right of appeal is a valuable right and unless ... aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee to file the delay condonation application and decide the fate of that delay condonation application afresh in accordance with

M/S Vivek Construciton, Balco Nagar vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Bilaspur

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

ITA 67/RPR/2026[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 66 & 67/Rpr/2026 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2021-22 & 2023-24) Vivek Construction, C-17, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Housing Board Colony Balco Nagar, Tax, Circle-1(1), Ayakar Bhawan, Korba, Chhattisgarh, 495684. Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, Cg - 495001 Pan: Aaffv3390P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None. (Adjournment Petition Filed) राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Ms. Bharti Singh, Cit-Dr Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 06/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

For Appellant: None. (Adjournment petition filed)For Respondent: Ms. Bharti Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 36(1)(iii)

drawing our attention to various paras of the assessment order and impugned appellate order, submitted that the Authorities below had provided reasonable opportunities of being heard to the appellant assessee; however, the appellant assessee tactfully ensured noncompliance to avoid investigations. Hence, she prayed for dismissing the appeal. Similar arguments were ... deciding these Vivek Construction vs. ACIT, Circle -1(1) cases afresh/denovo, in accordance with the law, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We order accordingly. The appellant assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in remitted appellate proceedings in both cases. 9. In the result, both appeals

Vivek Construction, Balco Korba vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Bilaspur

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

ITA 66/RPR/2026[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 66 & 67/Rpr/2026 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2021-22 & 2023-24) Vivek Construction, C-17, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Housing Board Colony Balco Nagar, Tax, Circle-1(1), Ayakar Bhawan, Korba, Chhattisgarh, 495684. Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, Cg - 495001 Pan: Aaffv3390P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None. (Adjournment Petition Filed) राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Ms. Bharti Singh, Cit-Dr Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 06/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

For Appellant: None. (Adjournment petition filed)For Respondent: Ms. Bharti Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 36(1)(iii)

drawing our attention to various paras of the assessment order and impugned appellate order, submitted that the Authorities below had provided reasonable opportunities of being heard to the appellant assessee; however, the appellant assessee tactfully ensured noncompliance to avoid investigations. Hence, she prayed for dismissing the appeal. Similar arguments were ... deciding these Vivek Construction vs. ACIT, Circle -1(1) cases afresh/denovo, in accordance with the law, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We order accordingly. The appellant assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in remitted appellate proceedings in both cases. 9. In the result, both appeals

Toman Singh Sahu, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Raipur

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

ITA 499/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.499/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Toman Singh Sahu H. No.1246, Vivekanand Ashram, Ram Kund Para, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Epyps2394L ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

cash deposits, in such scenario, addition should be made as per law. Needless to say, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC shall provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. As per the above terms grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Nutan Rai, Patna vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 5(3), Patna

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

ITA 236/PAT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna06 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Nutan Rai H.No.1B, Jagdish Apartment, Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3) Boring Canal Road, Patna- Patna, Bihar Vs. 800001, Bihar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahtpr1244F Assessee By : Shri Manish Rastogi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.03.2026

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 69A

with a direction to decide the issue denovo after taking into account the additional evidences filed by the assessee and affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 06.03.2026. (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY

Basti Sahkari Kraya Center Vikray Samiti Limited, Basti vs. ITO, Basti

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

ITA 539/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2015-16 Basti Sahkari Kraya Center V. Income Tax Officer Vikray Samiti Limited National Faceless Raja Bazar, Purani Basti, Basti- Assessment, New Delhi- 272002, Uttar Pradesh, India. 110001. Tan/Pan: Aacab0882G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shailendra Mishra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit-Dr O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Shailendra Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 253(3)Section 69A

Income-Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and on facts in failing to consider that the Id. A.O. has not allowed adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and passed the impugned assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the I.T. Act,1961, without placing on record ... file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo assessment order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Learned Departmental Representative for Revenue expressed no objection to this. In view of the foregoing, the impugned order of learned

Amith Vishnav Gudimella, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-12(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1705/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad06 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.1705/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2020-2021 Amith Vishnav The Income Tax Officer, Gudimella, Hyderabad. Ward-12(1), Pin – 500 008. Telangana. Vs. Hyderabad. Pan Aghpv2565J Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By Sri T Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Ms Reema Yadav, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 06.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Respondent: MS Reema Yadav, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90Section 91

should not deny a substantive relief. 3 ITA.No.1705/Hyd./2025 7. The learned CIT(A) erred in passing the order without granting proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant and without considering detailed submissions made through the e-response system. 8. The learned authorities erred in not allowing relief

Debpara Tea Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 983/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 8

assessment afresh after taking into account and conducting enquiry into the issues as mentioned in the order u/s 263 after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. The Ld. DR on the other hand, relied on the order of PCIT. 6. After hearing the rival contentions

Shri Gaurav Agarwal, Darjeeling vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1887/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Mar 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250oSection 69A

objections. The main objection raised was that under the provision of Section 148A(b) of the Act, the assessee should be provided an opportunity of being heard by serving upon the assessee a notice to show cause within such time as may be specified in the notice being not less ... prima facie, satisfied that there was merit in Petitioner's submissions. Section 148-A(B) of the Act reads as under:- "provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, by serving upon him a notice to show cause within such time, as may be specified in the notice, being

The Tamil Nadu Dr Ambedkar Law University, Chennia vs. Income- Tax Officer (Exemptions) Ward 1, Chennai

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

ITA 833/CHNY/2026[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:833/Chny/2026 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Tamil Nadu Dr. The Income Tax Officer Ambedkar Law University, Vs. (Exemptions), No.5, Poompozhil Campus, Ward 1, Dr. Dgs Dinakaran Salai, Chennai. Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aadat 3528N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Ann Mary Baby, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.03.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Pune Order Dated 27.01.2026 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2019-20 :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Shri Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Ms. Ann Mary Baby, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 154(3)Section 250

these allegations, resulting in a prejudicial order. Furthermore, the revised order was passed without issuing a notice and without providing me an opportunity of being heard. This is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice and the statutory requirements.” (emphasis supplied) 9. However, the FAA has omitted ... even for AY 2018-19 and thus, department failed to demonstrate that assessee had been given reasonable opportunity of being heard by AO before he passed the impugned orders u/s.154 of the Act. Thus, we find there is violation of statutory procedure prescribed by section 154 by the AO before

Parameshappa Shiddlingappa Kittad, Haveri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Haveri

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

ITA 2463/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Nulvi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT(DR)
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69Section 69A

were made before the lower authorities and requested that the ex parte order be set aside, as the assessee was deprived of an opportunity of being heard. 9. The learned DR, on the other hand, strongly supported the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted that the assessee ... restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer shall examine the matter afresh after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after considering the evidence that may be furnished in support of his claim. The assessee is also directed to cooperate

Parameshappa Shiddlingappa, Haveri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Haveri

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

ITA 2462/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Nulvi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT(DR)
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69Section 69A

were made before the lower authorities and requested that the ex parte order be set aside, as the assessee was deprived of an opportunity of being heard. 9. The learned DR, on the other hand, strongly supported the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted that the assessee ... restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer shall examine the matter afresh after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after considering the evidence that may be furnished in support of his claim. The assessee is also directed to cooperate

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Tax)- 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Marriott International Inc, Mumbai

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 34/MUM/2026[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Krishna KumarFor Respondent: Shri Pratik Poddar, Shri Karan Jain
Section 144CSection 271(1)(c)

issue which the assessee may seek to raise in defence of its return of income. The Assessing Officer shall allow the assessee due opportunity of being heard and only thereafter pass an order afresh, as per law. Thus, the AO was required to ITA No.34/Mum/2026 & C.O. No.89/Mum/2026 Assessment Year

Suman Education Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exemption)-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 8998/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarsuman Educational Trust Income Tax Officer (Exemption)- 39-A, 3Rd Floor, Maker Tower-F, 2(3), 6Th Floor, Mtnl Building, Cuff Parade, Colaba, Vs. Cumballa Hills, Pedder Road, Mumbai-400 005 Mumbai-400 026 Pan/Gir No. Aahts 1944 E (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Prakash Jotwani Respondent By : Shri Ankit Tiwari Date Of Hearing : 04.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey:

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Shri Ankit Tiwari
Section 11Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 68

grounds raised by the assessee are as under: 1. A) The ld. CIT(A) erred in not allowing the appellant an opportunity of being heard on two grounds of appeal for which the Appellant specifically requested for time vide letter dated 17.09.2025 and without providing any reasons ... Counsel took us through the documentary evidences placed in the paper book. Thus, he submitted, the departmental authorities having failed to provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the issues may be restored back to the A.O. for de novo adjudication. 6. The ld. Departmental Representative

Rotary Club of Bombay Queens Necklace Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 8306/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Bijayananda Prusethrotary Club Of Bombay Vs Ito (Exem.) Ward 2(2), Mumbai Queens Necklace Charitable Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road Trust Mumbai-400020 B 41/45, Paragon Centre, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400013 Pan: Aaatr4200K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PatelFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat (SR DR)
Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

report in Form No. 10B and allow the claim of exemption under sections 11 and 12 in accordance with law, after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 8. In the result, the appeal

M/S Sugee Ten Developers LLP, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward 2(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 8287/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri. Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Bhagat Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. Needless to say, the assessee shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard during the set-aside (Assessment Years: 2018-19 to 2020-21 & 2022-23) M/s. Sugee Ten Developers LLP assessment proceedings. Accordingly, the appeal

M/S Sugee Ten Developers LLP, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward 2(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 8286/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Bhagat Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. Needless to say, the assessee shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard during the set-aside (Assessment Years: 2018-19 to 2020-21 & 2022-23) M/s. Sugee Ten Developers LLP assessment proceedings. Accordingly, the appeal

M/S Sugee Ten Developers LLP, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward 2(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 8285/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Bhagat Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. Needless to say, the assessee shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard during the set-aside (Assessment Years: 2018-19 to 2020-21 & 2022-23) M/s. Sugee Ten Developers LLP assessment proceedings. Accordingly, the appeal