“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

Ziaul Hasan, Uttar Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(3)(1), Etah

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

ITA 381/AGR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhziaul Hasan, Vs. Ito, Ward 4(3)(1), 20/4, Chatta Jalesar, Etah. S.O. Etah, Etah – 207 302 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Aaepq4523A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tarun Gupta, Advocate Shri Gurfan Ahmad, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 Date Of Order : 28.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 30.05.2025 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar For The Assessee Submitted That There Was A Delay Of 1394 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Ld. Cit (A) & The Ld. Cit (A) Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee On The Ground Of An 2 Inordinate Delay Of 1394 Days & The Ld. Cit (A) Erroneously Presumed That The Order Was Served Electronically Despite The Fact That : (I) The Ruder Was Passed Manually & Does Not Bear Any Document Identification Number (Din); (Ii) The Assessment Proceedings Were Also Conducted Manually & Not Through The Income Tax E-Portal; (Iii) No Notices Were Served To The Assessee During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings; (Iv) The Order Was Not Served By Any Known Mode Of Communication Prescribed Under The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR

Further, we restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment afresh as per law, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also direct assessee to make proper submissions and appear before the Assessing Officer on the date of hearing

Talha Ahmad, Aligarh vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Aligarh

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

ITA 376/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhtalha Ahmad, Vs. Dcit, Circle 4(1)(1), Ameen Pardhan Wali Gali, Agra. Doharra, Aligarh – 202 001 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Bhapa6050J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Meetakshi Rastogi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 Date Of Order : 28.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountatn Member : 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 13.05.2025 For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar For The Assessee Brought To Our Notice That The Ld. Cit (A) Decided The Issue Against The Assessee By Observing That Assessee Has Not Pursued The Appeal Despite Being Granted Several Opportunities & The Details Are Given In The First Appellate Order By Relying On Several Decisions & Dismissed The Appeal In Limine. He Submitted That Ld. Cit (A) Has Not Decided

For Appellant: Ms. Meetakshi Rastogi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR

issue on merit and prayed that this issue may be remitted back to the ld. CIT(A) with the prayer to give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He submitted that there are reasons for assessee for not appearing before the first appellate authority. 3. On the other ... relying on the order of Assessing Officer ex-parte. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we direct ld. CIT (A) to give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue on merit as per law. We also direct assessee to make proper submissions and appear before

Ld Sarvodaya Hospital Private Limited, Agra vs. ITO 2(1)(1), Agra

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

ITA 375/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhld Sarvodaya Hospital Private Limited, Vs. Ito 2(1)(1), G – 11, Kamla Nagar, Agra. Agra – 282 005 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Aaccl7961N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2025 Date Of Order : 28.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 14.10.2024 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. We Are Proceeding To Decide The Appeal With The Assistance Of The Ld. Dr Of The Revenue. 3. At The Time Of Hearing, It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 208 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal On The Ground That The Managing

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR

Section 144

remit back the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate 3 opportunity of being heard to the assessee, for which Ld. DR has no objection. Assessee is directed to fully cooperate with the AO during the proceedings

Jitendra Basrani, Agra vs. Income Tax Officer, Agra

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

ITA 374/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhjitendra Basrani, Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1)(1), A – 774, Kamla Nagar, Agra. Agra – 282 005 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Ajrpb9552A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Alok Sursiya, Ca Revenue By : Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 Date Of Order : 28.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 31.05.2025 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar For The Assessee Brought To Our Notice That The Ld. Cit (A) Decided The Issue Against The Assessee By Observing That Assessee Has Not Pursued The Appeal Despite Being Granted Several Opportunities & The Details Are Given In The First Appellate Order By Relying On Several Decisions & Dismissed The Appeal In Limine. He Submitted That Ld. Cit

For Appellant: Shri Alok Sursiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR

Neetu Maheshwari, Agra vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Ward 1(1)(2), Agra

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

ITA 365/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr.DR

issue on merit and prayed that this issue may be remitted back to the ld. CIT(A) with the prayer to give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He submitted that there are reasons for assessee for not appearing before the first appellate authority. 3. On the other ... parte. In our considered view and in the interest of justice, we are of the opinion that assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard on merit. Therefore, we restore the matter to the file of ld. CIT (A) and direct to decide the issue on merit

Neetu Maheshwari, Agra vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer Ward 1(1)(2), Agra

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

ITA 364/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr.DR

issue on merit and prayed that this issue may be remitted back to the ld. CIT(A) with the prayer to give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He submitted that there are reasons for assessee for not appearing before the first appellate authority. 3. On the other ... parte. In our considered view and in the interest of justice, we are of the opinion that assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard on merit. Therefore, we restore the matter to the file of ld. CIT (A) and direct to decide the issue on merit

Upendra Singh Gour, Rajghat Colony, Lalitpur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal), Income Tax Department

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

ITA 353/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhupendra Singh Gour, Vs. Ito, Ward 2(3)(4), A 4/26, Rajghat Colony, Lalitpur – 284 403 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Bgjpg3206J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2025 Date Of Order : 28.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 24.07.2024 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. We Are Proceeding To Decide The Appeal With The Assistance Of The Ld. Dr Of The Revenue. 3. At The Time Of Hearing, It Was Observed That There Was A Delay Of 113 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Ld. Cit (A) & The Ld. Cit (A) Dismissed

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR

same. Further, we restore the matter to the file of ld. CIT (A) to decide afresh as per law, 3 after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also direct assessee to make proper submissions and appear before the ld.CIT (A) on the date of hearing

Anubhav Kumar, Aligarh vs. Additional/ Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Aligarh

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

ITA 351/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR

Section 147

remit back the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, for which Ld. DR has no objection. Assessee is directed to fully cooperate with the AO during the proceedings. We hold

Anubhav Kumar, Aligarh vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Aligarh

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

ITA 350/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR

Section 147

Chelaram Balwani, Rathi Building Ke Pass vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

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

ITA 194/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhshri Chelaram Balwani, Vs. Ito, Ward 1 (3), Rathi Building Ke Pass, Gwalior. Ward No.8, Ajay Pal Ki Gali, Datia, Gwalior – 475 661 (Madhya Pradesh). (Pan : Aynpb7221P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Alok Dhingra, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2025 Date Of Order : 16.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 10.01.2024 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice That There Is A Delay Of 395 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal On The Ground That The Order Was Communicated Via Portal & The Registered Mail Id I.E. 71Nkkhare@Gmail.Com On The Income Tax Portal Does Not Belong To The Assessee, It Might Have Been Of Erstwhile Consultant Who

For Appellant: Shri Alok Dhingra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR

Section 147

Smt Vimla Devi Ram Laxman Sharma Shiksha Samiti, Agra vs. ITO, Ward Exemtion, Agra Rcc, Agra

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

ITA 185/AGR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhsmt. Vimla Devi Ram Laxman Sharma Shiksha Samiti, Vs. Ito, Village Gadi Thana, Ward Exemption, Shamshabad, Agra. Agra – 283 125 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Aakas3559F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Malhotra, Ca Revenue By : Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2025 Date Of Order : 28.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Addl/Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Ahmedabad [“Ld. Jcit(A)”, For Short] Dated 26.03.2025 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar For The Assessee Submitted That There Was A Delay Of 1650 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Ld. Cit (A) & The Ld. Cit (A) Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee On The Ground Of Inordinate

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Malhotra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 154

Further, we restore the matter to the file of ld. CIT (A) to decide the issues afresh as per law, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also direct assessee to make proper submissions and appear before the ld.CIT (A) on the date of hearing

Amar Chand Gangwal, Guwahati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Guwahati

Appeal is allowed

ITA 144/GTY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Your Honour Under Section 253(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Challenging The Order Dated 17.12.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Said Act By The Ld. Addl/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -1, Noida For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. I Respectfully Submit That The Appeal Could Not Be Filed Within The Prescribed Time Due To Unavoidable Circumstances & Difficulties Beyond My Control. The Appeal Was Due To Be Filed On Or Before 28.02.2025. There Is Delay Of 95 Days Only In Filing Of The Appeal. 3. I Am Aged About 81 Years & I Am Not Conversant With E-Mail, Digital / Internet

Section 250Section 253(1)Section 270ASection 5

court should not be so technical, but it should be always to ensure that substantial justice is done by giving them an opportunity of being heard to both the parties." 8. In view of the above, it is respectfully submitted that I was prevented from filing the appeal in time

Mandakini Dkhar, Lumshnong vs. ACIT, Circle - 2, Guwahati

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 19/GTY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), where also she could not succeed. The Ld. CIT(A) mainly relied on the findings of the Ld. AO. It is also seen from para 18 at page 11 of the impugned order that the Ld. CIT(A) was considerably persuaded by the fact that the notice issued by the Ld. AO for eliciting response from the assessee, were not adequately responded to. It is also seen from the impugned order that attempts to verify the nature and extent of business from the VAT returns pertaining to the state of Megha

Section 10(26)Section 115BSection 250Section 69A

appellant without enquiring the facts, without verifying the evidences and documents, without applying his mind and dismissed in routine manner without affording proper opportunity of being heard. I.T.A. No. 19/GTY/2024 Mandakini Dkhar 5 The appellant prays for the stay of such demand till the disposal of this appeal. 6 That

Deepa Jhunjhunwala, Shillong vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Shillong

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 127/GTY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) and thereafter aggrieved the assessee has approached the ITAT with the following grounds:

Section 139(4)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80Section 80ASection 80I

held that the impugned Intimation U/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 having been issued without providing the appellant with an opportunity of being heard, was in contravention of the mandatory provisions of section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore was invalid and liable ... years. For AY 2016-17, it has been averred that before making adverse adjustments, the Ld. AO-CPC has not given any opportunity of being heard as mandated u/s 143(i)(a) of the Act. The Ld. AR read out the said proviso and emphasised the point that no adjustment

Deepa Jhunjhunwala, Shillong vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Shillong

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 126/GTY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) and thereafter aggrieved the assessee has approached the ITAT with the following grounds:

Section 139(4)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80Section 80ASection 80I

Asha Panagariya, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 1(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 998/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 250

assessee that lis between the parties has to be decided on merits so that nobody’s rights could be scuttled down without providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, the matter is restored to the file of the AO to decide it afresh by providing one more opportunity

Poonam Jain, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 6(2), Jaipur

ITA 951/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 147

passed hastily on 24-05-2025 thereby depriving her of a 4 SMT. POONAM JAIN VS ITO, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR reasonable opportunity of being heard. She further deposed that at the relevant time when the ld. CIT(A) passed the order dated 24-05-2024 then that time

Ishan Arora, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

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

ITA 669/JPR/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT a

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 154Section 234ASection 250Section 44ASection 69C

making additions of ₹17,26,200 as unexplained cash deposit and ₹2,84,255 as unexplained expenditure (credit card payments), without proper opportunity of being heard. A copy of the assessment order dt. 26.02.2014 is attached herewith as Annexure-1. 5. No valid notice

Jain Citizen Foundation Trust, Lal Kothi Scheme, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur, Lal Kothi

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

ITA 276/JPR/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2024-25

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

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Jain, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80g

assessee prayed to restore both the appeals to the ld CIT(E) for afresh adjudication by providing one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 2.4. Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the ld. CIT(E). 2.5 After hearing both parties and perusing the materials

Jain Citizen Foundation Trust, Lal Kothi Scheme, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Income Tax Department CIT Exemption, Jaipur

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

ITA 193/JPR/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2024-25

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

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Jain, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80g