“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

Kailash Bhil, Ajmer vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Ajmer

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

ITA 175/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: FixedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234A

registered post and physically served by Inspector. Therefore, I find that the appellant did not cooperate in the assessment proceeding although reasonable opportunity of being heard was provided to him. Thus, in my view, the reopening of the assessment is a valid reopening, and Ld AO was justified in completing ... 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

Kishan Lal Meena, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 1(3), Jaipur

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

ITA 1155/JPR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

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

Section 69ASection 69C

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

Mali Ram Yadav, Therkyo Ki Dhani vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1110/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1110/JPR/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Mali Ram Yadav Thekryo Ki Dhani, Village & Post: Jahota, Tehsil: Amer Distt: Jaipur 303 701 बनाम Vs. The ITO Ward - 7(2) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं. / PAN/GIR No.: ABJPY 6715A अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assesseeby : Shri Rakesh Kumar Kabra, CA Mrs. Prachela Kabra, CA राजस्व की ओर से /

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar Kabra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 69

void ab initio as it has been passed ex-parte without affording the appellant a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice 2 SHRI MALI RAM YADAV VS ITO, WARD 7(2), JAIPUR 2. That the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming

M/S Vxa Global LLP, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 1027/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Ms. Paridhi Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR

Section 144Section 144BSection 250Section 37(1)

facts in upholding the Order of AO which is passed without service of notice and SCN and without providing opportunity of being heard 6) The Learned NFAC (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the Order of AO when the selection of case for complete scrutiny ... GLOBAL LLP VS ITO WARD 1(1), JAIPUR 2024 without giving the reasonable opportunity of being heard and by violating the principle of natural justice 2.1 At the outset of hearing of the appeal, the Bench noticed that there is delay of 318 days in filing the appeal

Vijay Singh, Salarpur vs. ITO, Ward 1(5), Alwar

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

ITA 393/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, CA (Thru:VC)For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 234BSection 69ASection 80C

view 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

Jayshree Gopallalji Haveli Charitable Trust-Ujalvav, Bhavnagar vs. The CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 220/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.220/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : Na Jayshree Gopallalji Haveli The Cit (Exemption) बनाम/ Charitable Trust-Ujalvav Ahmedabad – 380 015 V/S. At Ujalvav, Umrala Bhavnagar – 364 290 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaetj 3303 P (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohit Balani, Ar Revenue By : Shri Alpesh Parmar, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 80GSection 80G(5)

intended to promote moral and educational values rather than ritualistic practices, the matter should be remanded back for proper re-examination after affording opportunity of being heard. Further, in Shree Vardhman Samaj Utkarsh Fund v. CIT (Exemptions) [2025] 178 taxmann.com 595 (Ahmedabad - Trib.) [23-09- 2025], ITAT categorically held that

Gfcl Ev Products Limited, Panchmahal vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1759/AHD/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(b)Section 250

activity was not satisfied, rendering the assessee ineligible to claim the benefit of section 115BAB. As regards the assessee's contention that no opportunity of being heard was given prior to processing under section 143(1) of the Act, the CIT(A) observed that the returned income was accepted ... considered view that the action of CPC in applying a higher tax rate of 30% without prior intimation or opportunity of being heard is in violation of the principles of natural justice. When an assessee is being subjected to a higher or additional tax liability, it is only fair, reasonable

Byk Yog Adhyatmik Forum, Pune vs. CIT (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 1401/PUN/2025[2026-27]Status: HeardITAT Pune28 Oct 2025AY 2026-27

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrabyk Yog Adhyatmik Forum Cit (Exemption), Pune Plot No.22, Cts No.15847 / 102, Vs. Aditya Nagar, Garkheda Parisar, Aurangabad – 431001 Pan: Aalcb0251G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Shubham N Rathi (Virtual) Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 28-10-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-10-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Shubham N Rathi (virtual)For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

application shall be liable to be rejected and the registration/approval shall also be liable to be cancelled. The assessee was also given opportunity of being heard vide the said notice. However, the assessee neither submitted the above mentioned compliance nor availed the opportunity of being heard. The assessee was requested ... submit compliance by 11/04/2025. The assessee was also given opportunity of being heard vide the said notice. The notice was duly served on the 3 assessee through e-portal and email. However, the assessee neither furnished its compliance to the show cause notice nor availed the opportunity of being heard

Kai Ramakant Vishwanath Bejgamwar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Nanded vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 1913/PUN/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR

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

subsequent to that or not. The Ld. CIT(E) is directed to decide the issue as per fact and law after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 8. Since

Kai Ramakant Vishwanath Bejgamwar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Nanded vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 1912/PUN/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR

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

Kamalpur Jotekanuragarh S K U S Limited, Paschim Medinipur vs. ACIT, Circle 38, Midnapur

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

ITA 382/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 270ASection 271FSection 272A(1)Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the appeal to him to be decided afresh, who shall allow an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and also grant an opportunity of representing the case and to be heard to the Ld. AO as per rule

Malay Addhya, Bongaon vs. ITO, Ward 49(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1234/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80T

that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in passing an order without providing proper opportunity of being heard 2. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in passing an ex-parte ... considered that the request of the assessee to set aside the case before the Ld. AO may be allowed so that a proper opportunity of being heard may be provided. Further, after examining the facts of the case and the law, we are of the view that the delay

Sandeep Poddar, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 50(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1218/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

considered that the request of the assessee to set aside the case before the Ld. AO may be allowed so that a proper opportunity of being heard may be provided. Hence, after examining the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order ... Poddar. matter back to the Ld. AO for making the reassessment de novo. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission it wants to make in support of its grounds of appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. Accordingly

M/S. Emerald Properties Pvt. Ltd. (Successor to Fast Mercantiles Pvt. Ltd.), Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 5(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 1260/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition Along With An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For The Delay. After Considering The Petition & The Submissions Made, We Are Satisfied That There Was Sufficient Cause For The Delay. Accordingly, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

Section 131Section 250Section 68

restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to re-examine the issue afresh after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall produce all necessary documentary evidences in support of the identity, creditworthiness of the share applicants, and genuineness

Gokuldass Srinivasan, Udumalaipettai vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Tiruppur

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

ITA 2230/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 263

with law and come to a logical conclusion and pass appropriate orders in the assessee's case. The Assessing Officer shall give adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee in this regard before passing the fresh assessment order. The assessee is also given yet another opportunity to present

Priyadarshini Kasivisvanathen, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-7(3), Chennai

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

ITA 2224/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2224/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri N. Vijay Kumar, C.A JKFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 147

file with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal afresh on merits, in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) on the date of hearing without fail and furnish

Khateeb Omair Ahmed, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncc-4(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2211/CHNY/2025[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2211/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri V. Arunachalesh, Advocate for Ms. G. Vardini Karthick, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 271(1)(c)Section 80R

remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) on the date of hearing without fail and furnish

Arulmigu Thirumalai Kumaraswamy Thirukoil, Tirunelveli vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward, Tirunelveli

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

ITA 2210/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2210/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri V. Arunachalesh, Advocate for Ms. G. Vardini Karthick, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 147

with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal afresh on merits, in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. This shall, however, subject to payment of costs of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand only). The same shall be paid

Chungath Varghese Sunny, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Chennai

ITA 1808/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1801 To 1805/Chny/2025 & 1806 To 1810/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2021 -22 & 2017-18 To 2021-22 Chungath Varghese Sunny, 275-276, Cross Cut Road, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore – 641 012. [Pan:Ageps-1475-K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Dcit, Central Circle -3(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Ten Appeals Of The Assessee Are Directed Against The Different Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai 20 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Id.Cit(A)”] Arising Out Of The Orders Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 3(3), Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ao”], U/S.153C R.W.S 143(3)/143(3)/270A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”] For The Assessment Years (“Ay/Ays”) 2017-18 To 2021-22. These Appeals Bearing Ita Nos.1801 To 1805/Chny/2025 Pertain To The Assessment Orders Passed U/S.153C R.W.S.143(3)/143(3) Of The Act, Whereas The Appeals Bearing Ita Nos.1806 To 1810/Chny/2025 Pertain To The Penalty Orders Passed U/S.270A Of The Act. 2. Since The Issues Involved In All The Five Assessment Years Under Consideration Are Identical In Nature & The Arguments Advanced By Both The Parties Are Common, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. We Shall First Address The Quantum Assessments.

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 270A

should not be made under section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. If you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity of being heard in person or through authorised representative, you may show cause in writing on or before the said date which will be considered before

Chungath Varghese Sunny, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Chennai

ITA 1802/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1801 To 1805/Chny/2025 & 1806 To 1810/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2021 -22 & 2017-18 To 2021-22 Chungath Varghese Sunny, 275-276, Cross Cut Road, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore – 641 012. [Pan:Ageps-1475-K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Dcit, Vs. Central Circle -3(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Ten Appeals Of The Assessee Are Directed Against The Different Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai 20 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Id.Cit(A)”] Arising Out Of The Orders Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 3(3), Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ao”], U/S.153C R.W.S 143(3)/143(3)/270A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”] For The Assessment Years (“Ay/Ays”) 2017-18 To 2021-22. These Appeals Bearing Ita Nos.1801 To 1805/Chny/2025 Pertain To The Assessment Orders Passed U/S.153C R.W.S.143(3)/143(3) Of The Act, Whereas The Appeals Bearing Ita Nos.1806 To 1810/Chny/2025 Pertain To The Penalty Orders Passed U/S.270A Of The Act. 2. Since The Issues Involved In All The Five Assessment Years Under Consideration Are Identical In Nature & The Arguments Advanced By Both The Parties Are Common, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. We Shall First Address The Quantum Assessments.

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 270A