← 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

Surinder Kumar Chhabra, Gurgaon vs. Circle 4(1), Gurgaon

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

ITA 4776/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 69C

made before the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is non- speaking and without giving adjudicate opportunity of being heard. 7. On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR supported the order of the authorities below. 8. We have heard both the parties ... order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Further, the assessee will be at liberty to support any evidence / explanation in support of its claim

Kishna Gears Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-14(4), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2885/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)

case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,34,86,187/- without providing a proper opportunity of being heard, sufficient time to represent, and without confronting the material to the assessee on which the AO based the addition.” 7. At the time

Taufiq Ahmed, Muradnagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2)(4), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 3946/DEL/2023[2012-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2012-23

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmataufiq Ahmed, Vs. Ito, 115, Moh-Vyapeerayan, 3, Ward-2(2)(4), Khatikan, Muradnagar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ajupa6473A Assessee By : Shri Abhishek Agarwal, Adv Shri Varun Goel, Adv Revenue By: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2025

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR
Section 142Section 144Section 147Section 148

inclined to remit the additional evidence back to the AO to verify the same and redo the assessment de novo after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same time, we also direct the assessee to comply to the notices of Taufiq Ahmed

Kailash Gahlot, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi

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

ITA 3431/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.3431/Del./2023, A.Y. 2015-16 Kailash Gahlot Deputy Commissioner Of C-6/6172, Vasant Kunj, Income Tax, New Delhi Vs. Central Circle-4, Pan: Aajpg2849N New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Vinod Kumar Bindal, Ca Sh. Anmol Jha, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal Of The Assessee For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.09.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 153DSection 69C

cannot give any direction which may create any additional liability beyond what was proposed in the draft assessment order. That is why the opportunity of being heard is not mandated under section 153D of the Act. Thus, no prejudice can be caused to the assessee while granting approval under section

DCIT Central Circle-31, New Delhi vs. Parv Bansal As L/H of Late Anil Kumar Bansal, New Delhi

Accordingly, Ground of appeal No.6 raised by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1739/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Parv Bansal Vs Dcit L/H Of Late Shri Anil Kumar Central Circle-31 Bansal, 208, 2Nd Floor, S-524 New Delhi Vikas Marg Shakarpur, New Delhi-110092. Pan-Aafpb2542K Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2012-13] Dcit Vs Parv Bansal Central Circle-31 L/H Of Late Shri Anil Kumar New Delhi Bansal, 208, 2Nd Floor, S-524 Vikas Marg Shakarpur, New Delhi-110092. Pan-Aafpb2542K Appellant Respondent Assessee By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv, Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Shri Shrey Jain, Adv. & Shri Saksham Agarwal, Ca Revenue By Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Cit Dr & Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.10.2025 Order

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 254Section 68

Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not providing the Assessing Officer with an opportunity of being heard, on the additional submission made by the appellant. 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case

Parv Bansal L/H of Late Sh. Anil Kumar Bansal, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle 31, New Delhi

Accordingly, Ground of appeal No.6 raised by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1057/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Parv Bansal Vs Dcit L/H Of Late Shri Anil Kumar Central Circle-31 Bansal, 208, 2Nd Floor, S-524 New Delhi Vikas Marg Shakarpur, New Delhi-110092. Pan-Aafpb2542K Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2012-13] Dcit Vs Parv Bansal Central Circle-31 L/H Of Late Shri Anil Kumar New Delhi Bansal, 208, 2Nd Floor, S-524 Vikas Marg Shakarpur, New Delhi-110092. Pan-Aafpb2542K Appellant Respondent Assessee By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv, Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Shri Shrey Jain, Adv. & Shri Saksham Agarwal, Ca Revenue By Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Cit Dr & Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.10.2025 Order

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 254Section 68

Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not providing the Assessing Officer with an opportunity of being heard, on the additional submission made by the appellant. 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case

Shri Maheshkumar Jivrambhai Joshi, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward-2 (2)(3), Rajkot

ITA 635/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Oct 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Kumar Pandya, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Anadi Dixit, Ld. Sr. DR

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, राजकोटन्यायपीठ, राजकोट । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI

Manisha Kumari, Patna vs. Ward-5(2), Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 286/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.286/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Manisha Kumari…..……………..………. …………………....Appellant 5, Indrapuri, Keshri Nagar, Indrapuri, Patna, Pin-800024. Bihar.. [Pan: Afmpk0739D] Vs. Ito, Ward-5(2), Patna ......…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Shikesh Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 23, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.11.2024 Of The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Relating To The Assessment Year 2016–17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Who Filed A Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of ₹2,29,470 For The Assessment Year 2016–17. Based On Information That Income To The Tune Of ₹7,50,000 Had Escaped Assessment, The Assessing Officer Recorded Reasons For Reopening The Case & Obtained The Necessary Approval From The Competent Authority. Consequently, Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee. No Return Of Income Was Filed In Response To The Said Notice. Thereafter, Notices Under Section 142(1) Along With

Section 142(1)Section 148

fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) shall re-examine the issues involved in I.T.A. No.286/Pat/2025 Manisha Kumari accordance with law after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to extend full cooperation and comply with all notices issued by the CIT(A) during the proceedings

Sudhir Kumar Tuli, Bihar vs. Income Tax Officer, Bihar

ITA 173/PAT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.173/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sudhir Kumar Tuli..……………..………. …………………....Appellant B-12, Anjali Apartment Boring Road Behind Alankar Place, Patna - 800001. Bihar.. [Pan: Actpt9461D] Vs. Ito, Patna ………….......…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Kaushal Kr. Ar, ., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 13, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 23, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10.02.2025 Of The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Relating To The Assessment Year 2014–15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Entered Into A Land Development Agreement With A Builder For Development Of His Land. As Per The Terms Of The Agreement, No Monetary Consideration Was To Be Received By The Assessee Except For Three Residential Flats To Be Allotted To Him Upon Completion Of The Project. The Builder, After Development, Was To Become The Absolute Owner Of His Share In The Project & Would Thereafter Be Entitled To Enter Into Agreements For Sale In Respect Of Such Share. During The Course Of Proceedings, In Response To A Notice Issued

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144

learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) shall re-examine the issues afresh after I.T.A. No.173/Pat/2025 Sudhir Kumar Tuli affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to fully cooperate in the proceedings and to comply with all notices issued

Jayanti S Kundhadiya, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Pune vs. Patil Construction and Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 231/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 80

clause (a) above, then allow the claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4). 31. Needless to say the Assessing Officer shall provide due opportunity of being heard to the assessee while deciding the issue. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the Revenue are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes

Jayanti S Kundhadiya, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Pune vs. Patil Construction and Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 230/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 80

clause (a) above, then allow the claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4). 31. Needless to say the Assessing Officer shall provide due opportunity of being heard to the assessee while deciding the issue. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the Revenue are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2(1), Pune vs. Patil Construction and Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 229/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 80

clause (a) above, then allow the claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4). 31. Needless to say the Assessing Officer shall provide due opportunity of being heard to the assessee while deciding the issue. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the Revenue are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes

Bababhai Sadarbhai Shaikh, Ahmednagar vs. ITO Ward 1, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 144/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16 Bababhai Sadarbhai Shaikh Ito, Ward 1, Nr Goraba Takies Jamkhed, Vs. Ahmednagar Ahmednagar – 413201 Pan: Hozps1445M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas P Bora Department By : Shri Ratnakar Bhimrao Shelake Date Of Hearing : 10-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23-10-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P BoraFor Respondent: Shri Ratnakar Bhimrao Shelake
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 69A

NFAC with a direction to adjudicate all the grounds raised by the assessee afresh and as per fact and law after providing due opportunity of being heard to the 11 assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes

Tapas Kumar Sarkar, Barasat, North Twenty Four Parganas vs. I.T.O., Ward - 50(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1873/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Oct 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 194Section 194CSection 194JSection 250Section 40

appeal taken by the assessee on merit by passing a speaking order. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further I.T.A. Nos.: 1872 & 1873/KOL/2025 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Tapas Kumar Sarkar. submission it wants to make in support ... grounds of appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments and rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 shall also be followed and an opportunity of being heard may be provided to the Ld. AO, if required. Accordingly, all the grounds taken by the assessee in his appeal are partly allowed

Tapas Kumar Sarkar, Barasat, North Twenty Four Parganas vs. I.T.O., Ward - 50(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1872/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 194Section 194CSection 194JSection 250Section 40

appeal taken by the assessee on merit by passing a speaking order. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further I.T.A. Nos.: 1872 & 1873/KOL/2025 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Tapas Kumar Sarkar. submission it wants to make in support ... grounds of appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments and rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 shall also be followed and an opportunity of being heard may be provided to the Ld. AO, if required. Accordingly, all the grounds taken by the assessee in his appeal are partly allowed

Dipak Agarwalla HUF, Malda vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Malda

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

ITA 1400/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Oct 2025AY 2019-2020

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 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250

Assessing Officer with a direction to re-examine the bank transactions, verify the nature of deposits and withdrawals, and afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing a speaking order in accordance with law. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Primula Bhandari, Gangtok vs. DCIT, Circle 3(2), Gangtok

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

ITA 1394/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1394/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) Primula Bhandari Vs Dcit, Circle-3(2), Kolkata C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, Kol-69. Pan No. :Ajvpb2150Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Smt. Parna Datta, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, Sr. Dr सुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/10/2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Nfac Dated 06.05.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Did Not File The Return Of Income For The Relevant Assessment Year. The Assessing Officer Noticed Cash Deposits In The Bank Account Of The Assessee & Accordingly Reopened The Assessment Under Section 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961.The Assessment Was Completed Under Sections 144/147, Determining The Total Income At ₹25,85,346/-, After Making An Addition Of ₹25,85,346/- Under Section 69A Of The Act On Account Of Unexplained Money.

For Appellant: Smt. Parna Datta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 147Section 250Section 69A

received as per customary practices prevailing in the State of Sikkim during the funeral of his father. The Assessing Officer shall afford adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and thereafter pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Madurai vs. Transworld Garnet India Pvt Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1878/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

view that on account of the above rectification, there exists no enhancement in the income of the appellant, therefore no opportunity of being heard was provided to the appellant. Accordingly, the grounds raised with respect of the above addition in the AY(s) 2016-17 & 2017-18 will

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Madurai vs. Transworld Garnet India Pvt Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1877/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri. R.Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

view that on account of the above rectification, there exists no enhancement in the income of the appellant, therefore no opportunity of being heard was provided to the appellant. Accordingly, the grounds raised with respect of the above addition in the AY(s) 2016-17 & 2017-18 will

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Madurai vs. Transworld Garnet India Pvt Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1875/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1872, 1873, 1875, 1877 & 1878/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle -2, Madurai. Vs. Transworld Garnet India Pvt. Ltd., 500, Pantheaon Road, Egmore S.O., Chennai - 600 008. [Pan: Aaact-3408-N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R.Venkata Raman, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2025 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : These Five Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Id.Cit(A)”]. The Impugned Orders Of The Id.Cit(A) Arise Out Of The Assessment Orders Framed By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Madurai [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ao”], In Respect Of The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2017-18. The Particulars Of The Respective Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Set Out Hereinbelow:- S. No

For Appellant: Shri. R.Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री जॉर्ज जॉर्ज के, उपाध्यक्ष