← 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

Kajal Batra, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-52(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed as above

ITA 2419/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 69A

legally permissible opportunity to the assessee by following the principle of natural justice. During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee was rendered opportunity of being heard to reiterate the principle of natural justice. On both occasions, the assessee has failed to avail the opportunity to be heard in sync ... with principle of natural justice. 11.4 However, in all fairness, the assessee may be given another opportunity of being heard before the AO within the meaning of section 251 (1) (a) of Income Tax Act, 1961 to meet ends of the justice. 11.5 It may be appreciated that the provisions

Ncr Global Solutions Limited, Ireland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(2)(2), International Tax, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 1885/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Officer shall, in conformity with the directions, complete, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 153. the assessment without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee, within one month from the end of the month in which such direction is received." (iii) The TPO/AO shall place

Dharam Singh, Ghaziabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ghaziabad

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 653/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 653/Del/2024 (A.Y 2012-13) Dharam Singh V Income Tax Officer 118, Kautilya Apartment, Sector-6, S Ward 1(2), Room No. Vasundhara, Ghaziabad, 230, Cgo Complex-1, Uttar Pradeshpan: Aidps6593H Hapurchungi, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh Appellant Respondent Assessee By None Revenue By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2025

Section 143(3)Section 147

application is filed, the Ld. CIT(A) shall decide the same in accordance with law and also disposed the First Appeal by providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. If no application along with the documents are not filed within the reasonable time, the same shall not preclude

Baani Landbase Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5944/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5944/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Baani Landbase Pvt Ltd., Dcit, Corporate One, Ground Floor, Vs. Circle-4(2), Plot No.5, District Center, Jasola, Central Revenue Building, Delhi. I.P. Estate, Delhi. Pan No.Aadcb0237E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 156Section 292B

That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the order, upholding the actions of the Ld. AO, without granting proper opportunity of being heard to the Appellant, by declining request for adjournment in respect of scheduled hearing on 05.12.2022. 1.2 That the Ld. CIT{A) erred in law in holding ... That the impugned order passed by Ld. AO, based on a singular notice, issued during COVID duly complied with, without allowing proper opportunity of being heard, is against the principle of natural justice, (ii) That the impugned order has been passed without specifying the mandatory DIN on the face

Rajendra Kumar Sahi, Ranchi vs. CIT (Appeal), Delhi

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

ITA 148/RAN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.148/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Rajendra Kumar Sahi………….……………............................……….……Appellant Hulhundu, Hatia, Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834003. [Pan: Agkps0098L] Vs. Cit(Appeal), Jharkhand….....…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..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 : October 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 29, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)”] Dated 07.08.2024 Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) For The Assessment Year 2022–23. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2022–23 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹4,96,520. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny As The Assessee Had Disclosed Comparatively Low Income Against Receipts On Which Tcs Had Been Deducted. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Noted A Possibility That The Assessee Had Shown Low Income In Order To Reduce Taxable Profits. It Was Also Observed That The Assessee Had Claimed Significantly Higher Tds In The Revised Itr. Therefore, The Ao Intended To Verify The Genuineness Of The Additional Tds Claim & Whether The Corresponding Receipts Had Been Offered To Tax. Accordingly, Notices Under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Income-Tax Act Were Issued To The Assessee. However, The Assessee Did Not Comply With The Notices. Consequently, The Ao

Section 250

appropriate to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and shall also allow the assessee to file necessary supporting documents to substantiate its claims. 6. In the result, the appeal

Atul Vrajlal Karia, Rajkot vs. Ac / Dc (Int.Txn), Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 133/RJT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.133/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2012-13 Atul Vrajlal Karia Ac/Dc (Int. Txn), बनाम C/O. D.S. Karia & Co. Ca, 203, Rajkot Cosmo Complex, Mahila College Vs. Chowk, Kalawad Road, Rajkot Pan : Adwpk6568J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR
Section 127Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 250Section 282Section 69

Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner from whose jurisdiction the case is to be transferred may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, pass the order, (b) where ... transferred is required to: (a) Record its reasons in writing for transferring the case; (b) After giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, wherever it is possible to do so (if the assessing officers are in different locality, city or place); and (c) After passing an order

Kamlesh Babubhai Patel, Valsad vs. ITO, Ward-5, Vapi

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

ITA 794/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Diesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250

remand the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merit after affording the due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We direct the assessee to submit relevant details/ documents/evidences if any as required

Leader People Service Charitable Trust, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption Ward), Visakhapatnam

ITA 471/VIZ/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.471/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: Na) Leader People Service Vs. The Income Tax Officer Charitable Trust, (Exemption Ward), Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aabtl4868N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Sri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit- Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 29/10/2025 Pronouncement: O R D E R "ित रवीश सूद, जे.एम./Per Ravish Sood, J.M. The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Trust Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(Exemptions)”], Hyderabad, Dated 17.06.2025 Rejecting Its Application Filed In “Form No. 10Ab” For Regular Registration Under Section 80G(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”). The Assessee

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Badicala Yadagiri, CIT-
Section 80GSection 80G(5)

assessee trust for regular registration under Section 80G of the Act, on merits, in accordance with the extant law and after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee trust. 12. Resultantly, the appeal of the assessee trust is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Cp Reddy Charitable Trust, Rajahmundry vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad

ITA 470/VIZ/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.470/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: Na) C P Reddy Charitable Vs. Commissioner Of Income Trust, Tax (Exemption), Rajahmundry. Hyderabad. Pan: Aabtc3393F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Smt. V. Krishna Kumari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Sri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit- Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 29/10/2025 Pronouncement: O R D E R "ित रवीश सूद, जे.एम./Per Ravish Sood, J.M. The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Trust Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(Exemptions)”], Hyderabad, Dated 17.06.2025 Rejecting Its Application Filed In “Form No. 10Ab” For Regular Registration Under Section 80G(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”). The Assessee

For Appellant: Smt. V. Krishna KumariFor Respondent: Sri Badicala Yadagiri, CIT-
Section 80GSection 80G(5)

Reddy Charitable Trust vs. CIT (Exemption) under Section 80G of the Act, on merits, in accordance with extant law and after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee trust. 12. Resultantly, the appeal of the assessee trust is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Edakkalathur Devassy Daiz, Thrissur vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Thrissur

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA

ITA 651/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Edakkalathur Devassy Daiz .......... Appellant Edakkalathur House, Ayyanthole P.O. Thriussur 680003 [Pan: Abppd1785R] Vs. Acit, Circle 2(1), Thrissur ......... Respondent Assessee By: Ms. Krishna K., Advocate Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 27.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.10.2025

For Appellant: Ms. Krishna K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

shall consider all such documents and evidence in accordance with law and decide the matter afresh after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, so as not to prejudice

Late Shri Shakti Singh Through Legal Heir Smt. Vidhya Rathore, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 892/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur29 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Dileep Shivpuri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 250Section 271(1)Section 49

noted that the ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order and thus dismissed the appeal of the assessee without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Bench feels that the grievance as raised by the assessee in appeal before ITAT needs to be re-decided ... pass an afresh order in the name of L/h Smt. Vidya Rathore W/o of late Shri Shakti Singh, but by providing one more opportunity of being heard to the legal heir. The L/H of the assessee is directed to produce all the relevant documents/ written submission before

Bina Kanwar, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward Tonk, Tonk

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

ITA 1243/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR
Section 115Section 147Section 234Section 69A

erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in passing the assessment order without providing the adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard in gross breach of law. hence the order may kindly be quashed and entire addition liable to be deleted ... well as on the facts of the case in passing the Ex parte order without providing the adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard in gross breach of law and without considering the material on record, hence the order may kindly be quashed and entire addition liable to be deleted

Rupesh Tambi, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is Partly allowed

ITA 1470/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S. R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 1Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 271Section 271A

read with section 271AAB of the Act and a penalty notice was issued accordingly. You are hereby allowed further opportunity of being heard and show cause why an order imposing penalty on you should not be made u/s 271AAB of the I T Act, 1961.In this connection it is submitted ... wherein, it directs that no order imposing penalty shall be made unless the assessee has been heard or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, from plain reading of section 271AAB of the Act, it is evident that the penalty cannot be imposed unless the assessee

Koolking Foundation, Malerkotla vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh

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

ITA 883/CHANDI/2025[Not Applicable]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 883/Chd/2025 U/S 80G Kookling Foundation, The Cit बनाम C/O Kookling Udhyog Private (Exemptions), Limited, Chandigarh Vs. Village Ratolan, Focal Point, Dhuri Road, Malerkotla 148023 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaftk7048D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Pankaj Bhalla, Ca (Virtual) राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Manav Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.05.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Exemptions, Chandigarh.

For Appellant: Sh. Pankaj Bhalla, CA (Virtual)For Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 80G

registration under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without issuance of any show cause notice and without affording adequate and meaningful opportunity of being heard. 3. That the Ld. CIT (Exemptions) has erred in concluding that the activities of the trust are not genuine and not in accordance ... present case, has not been done. Accordingly, we remand this case back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) to grant an opportunity of being heard to the Assessee as required under the law and then pass an 883-Chd-2025 Koolking Foundation, Malerkotla 4 order. Accordingly, Assessee, appeal

Koolking Foundation, Malerkotla vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh

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

ITA 882/CHANDI/2025[Not Applicable]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 882 /Chd/2025 U/S 12Aa Kookling Foundation, The Cit बनाम C/O Kookling Udhyog Private (Exemptions), Limited, Chandigarh Vs. Village Ratolan, Focal Point, Dhuri Road, Malerkotla 148023 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaftk7048D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Pankaj Bhalla, Ca (Virtual) राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Manav Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.05.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Exemptions, Chandigarh.

For Appellant: Sh. Pankaj Bhalla, CA (Virtual)For Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 124Section 12ASection 2(15)

registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without issuance of any show cause notice and without affording adequate and meaningful opportunity of being heard. 3. That the Ld. CIT (Exemptions) has erred in concluding that the activities of the trust are not genuine and not in accordance ... present case, has not been done. Accordingly, we remand this case back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) and grant an opportunity of being heard to the Assessee as required under the law and then pass an order. Accordingly, Assessee, appeal is allowed. 7. In the result

Sarojben Natvarbhai Patel, Chhotaudepur vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(4), Vadodara

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

ITA 375/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Bakshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P. Meena, Sr.DR
Section 144BSection 148Section 148ASection 149Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

learned CIT(A) and the AO erred in fact and in law in making the assessment order without giving a proper opportunity of giving heard. 13. The learned CIT(A) and the AO erred in fact and in law in making an addition u/s. 234A ... proceedings initiated under section 148 were time-barred and bad in law, and that the Assessing Officer had passed the order without proper opportunity of being heard and without independently forming a belief of escapement of income. The CIT(Appeals), after examining the record, held that the notice under section

Kriteshwar Prasad Singh, Panvel vs. Asst/Dy CIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 268/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.268/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2022-23 Kriteshwar Prasad Singh The Asst./Dy.Cit बनाम/ F.No.07, Lilac Bldg Circle-2(1)(1) V/S. Godrej Sky Garden Vadodara – 390 007 Takka, Panvel – 410 206 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Ahlps 7784 H (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra C. Meha, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/10/2025 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 21/01/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-2023. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. 143 1 A The Ld Addl Jcit A Grossly Erred On Facts & In Law In Dismissing The Appeal Without Adjudicating The Preliminary Issue Raised Regarding The Violation Of Statutory Provision Of Sec 143 1 A Of The Income Tax Act 1961 The Act In The Form Of Kriteshwar Prasad Singh Vs. Asst/Dy Cit Asst. Year : 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra C. Meha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Sr.DR
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

natural justice and contrary to the provisions of section 143(1)(a) of the Act. The assessee submitted that no prior intimation or opportunity of being heard was granted before making the said adjustment as mandated under the first proviso to section

Checkmate Facility & Electronic Solution Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 234/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr.DR
Section 244ASection 250

issue requires factual verification. The Assessing Officer shall examine the reconciliation and supporting documents and decide the matter afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and restore the matter to the file

Vikas Ratanlal Jain, Aurangabad vs. CIT(A), Aurangabad

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

ITA 648/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.648/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vikas Ratanlal Jain, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Plot No.32, Station Road, Aurangabad. Vedant Nagar, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Aurangabad- 431005. Pan : Afapj5847B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nandkishor S. Daga & Shri Nitesh N. Daga Revenue By : Shri Shashank Ojha Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.01.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “01. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Ctt(A) Along With The Learned Ao Has Erred In Contending That Provisions Of S. 56(2)(Vii)(B) Is Applicable To All The Immovable Properties Even If Such Land Is Considered As Stock In Trade. As Mentioned In The Explanation To The Aforesaid Section, Property Means The ‘Capital Asset’ Of The Assessee & Hence If Land Is Considered As Stock In Trade, Provisions Of Such 2 Section Are Not Applicable To Such Purchase. Reliance Is Placed On The Various Judicial Precedents Wherein It Has Been Held That The Provisions Of S. 56(2)(Vii)(B) Are Not Applicable To Stock In Trade But Is Applicable Only To Capital Assets:  Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Ashok Agarwal (Huf)

For Appellant: Shri Nandkishor S. Daga &For Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

appellant and his order should be a speaking order. 05. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in not providing the enough opportunity of being heard. Considering the above, we request you to evaluate our grounds of appeal and oblige.’ 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee

Arham Foundation, Pune vs. CIT (Exemption), Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1585/PUN/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Oct 2025AY 2025-26
Section 12ASection 33Section 36A

responsibility to grant registration under section 12AB of the Act and registration and cancellation can be proceeded with only after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The reply of the Trust that loan has been subsequently repaid has been glossed over and a mere procedural irregularity, which is curable