← 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

Nikulbhai Chaturbhai Patel, HUF, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-4(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 46/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR & Shri HargovindFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR & Shri Hargovind
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69

income tax act, 1961 passed by Ld. CIT(A) is without considering facts of Appellant's case and without giving any opportunity of being heard. This constitutes a material procedural irregularity and renders the order bad in law and void. 3. In law and in the facts and circumstances ... income tax act, 1961 passed by Ld. CIT(A) is without considering facts of Appellant's case and without giving any opportunity of being heard. This constitutes a material procedural irregularity and renders the order bad in law and void. 3. In law and in the facts and circumstances

Nikulbhai Chaturbhai Patel, HUF, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-4(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 45/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR & Shri HargovindFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR & Shri Hargovind
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69

income tax act, 1961 passed by Ld. CIT(A) is without considering facts of Appellant's case and without giving any opportunity of being heard. This constitutes a material procedural irregularity and renders the order bad in law and void. 3. In law and in the facts and circumstances ... income tax act, 1961 passed by Ld. CIT(A) is without considering facts of Appellant's case and without giving any opportunity of being heard. This constitutes a material procedural irregularity and renders the order bad in law and void. 3. In law and in the facts and circumstances

Income Tax Ward 4(2)(3) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Nikulbhai Chaturbhai Patel HUF, Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 267/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR & Shri HargovindFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR & Shri Hargovind
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69

income tax act, 1961 passed by Ld. CIT(A) is without considering facts of Appellant's case and without giving any opportunity of being heard. This constitutes a material procedural irregularity and renders the order bad in law and void. 3. In law and in the facts and circumstances ... income tax act, 1961 passed by Ld. CIT(A) is without considering facts of Appellant's case and without giving any opportunity of being heard. This constitutes a material procedural irregularity and renders the order bad in law and void. 3. In law and in the facts and circumstances

Income Tax Ward 4(2)(3) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Nikulbhai Chaturbhai Patel HUF, Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 266/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR & Shri HargovindFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR & Shri Hargovind
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69

income tax act, 1961 passed by Ld. CIT(A) is without considering facts of Appellant's case and without giving any opportunity of being heard. This constitutes a material procedural irregularity and renders the order bad in law and void. 3. In law and in the facts and circumstances ... income tax act, 1961 passed by Ld. CIT(A) is without considering facts of Appellant's case and without giving any opportunity of being heard. This constitutes a material procedural irregularity and renders the order bad in law and void. 3. In law and in the facts and circumstances

Manavta Trade Link Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 10(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1222/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Sonjoy Sarmamanavta Trade-Link Pvt Ltd Vs Ito, Ward-10 (2), Kolkata Room No.4, 24 Roy Steet, L.R.Sarani, Kolkata West Bengal-700020 Pan No.Aaicm 3500 C (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl.Cit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manjunatha G, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 29.06.2024 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-2018, On The Following Grounds :- 1. That The Order Passed U/S 250 Is Bad In Law As Well As On Facts Of The Case. That The Hon'Ble Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld. Assessing Officer In Rejecting The Books Of Accounts Under Section 145 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Without Establishing Any Cogent Or Specific Defect In The Regularly Maintained & Audited Books Of Accounts Of The Appellant 2. That The Hon'Ble Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Further Erred In Confirming The Assessment Framed Under Section 144 Of The Act By Estimating Net Profit @1.5% On Total Rs.64,50,64,196/- & Thereby Sustaining An Arbitrary Addition Of Rs. 96,75,963/-, Ignoring The Actual Audited Turnover & Net Profit Disclosed By The Appellant In Its Return 3. That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Admitting That Proper Opportunity Of Being Heard Was Not Granted By The Assessing Officer Before Proceeding To Reject The Books & Complete The 2

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl.CIT-Sr.DR
Section 144Section 145Section 250

turnover and net profit disclosed by the appellant in its return 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not admitting that proper opportunity of being heard was not granted by the Assessing Officer before proceeding to reject the books and complete the 2 ITANo.1222/Kol/2025 assessment ... restore the issue to the file of ld.AO with a direction to reconsider the issue de novo after providing the assessee sufficient opportunity of being heard. 4. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 18/09/2025. SD/- (SONJOY SARMA

Shri Nityanand Pandey, Hooghly vs. I.T.O., Ward - 23(1), Hooghly

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

ITA 2067/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 148Section 148(2)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 ... 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 the relief claimed and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. Accordingly, the grounds

Syed Khaja Mohideen, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-17(7), Chennai

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

ITA 1991/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1991/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Syed Khaja Mohideen, The Income Tax Officer, Khaja & Sait, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 17(7), Block 3D, Door No.9, Chennai. Murrays Gate Road, Venus Colony, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aseps 9976R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Khaja Mohideen, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam,Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Khaja Mohideen, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam,JCIT
Section 250

order of FAA is set :- 4 -: aside and matter remanded back to his file for fresh adjudication on merits after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly

The Daughrers of the Heart of Mary Diya Kiran Community, Mangalore vs. Income Tax Officer(Exemptions) Ward-1, Mangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1408/BANG/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : N.A.

For Appellant: Shri Jinitha Chatterjee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 12A

rejecting such application and also cancelling the provisional registration. But the necessary pre-condition before rejection is that he must afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. This is because of the cardinal principles of natural justice that before deciding against the assessee, he must be heard

Church of Our Lady of Immaculate Conception, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed

ITA 4999/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 11Section 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 254(1)

Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in disposing of the Appeal without issuing any notice for hearing and thereby affording any opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. It is submitted that the learned CIT(A) has passed the ex-parte Appellate Order in gross violation of principles

Church of Our Lady of Immaculate Conception, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed

ITA 4998/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 11Section 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 254(1)

Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in disposing of the Appeal without issuing any notice for hearing and thereby affording any opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. It is submitted that the learned CIT(A) has passed the ex-parte Appellate Order in gross violation of principles

Nalini Mahendra Thacker, Mumbai vs. ITO- 29(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4881/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Agarwal, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

under “other heads” within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. Suffice to say the Ld. Commissioner shall afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to Assessee. 6. Thus, the case is accordingly remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh in the said terms

Asha Himmat Bhadra, Mumbai vs. DCIT -Circle 32(1), Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4764/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2017-18 Ms. Asha Himmat Bhadra, Dcit – Circle 32(1) 401 Beach Apartment, Kautilya Bhavan, Balraj Sahani Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Near Novotel Hotel, Vs. Bandra (East) Juhu, Mumbai, Mumbai, Mumbai Maharashtra– 400 051 Maharashtra – 400 049 Pan: Aabpb7076J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Kiran K. Chhatrapati, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.03.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short “Ld. Commissioner”) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2017-18. 2. Though In The Instant Case, Both The Parties Have Filed Adjournment Applications, However, This Court Observes That The Impugned Order Is An Ex-Parte & Therefore It Would Be Appropriate To Dismiss The Adjournment Requests & To Proceed With The Case To Decide The Same. Thus, The Adjournments Requests Are Declined & Case Is Proceeded With.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kiran K. Chhatrapati, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 68

instant case to the file 3 Ms. Asha Himmat Bhadra of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 7. Thus, the case is remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh accordingly. 8. The Assessee

Income Tax Officer- 15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ellora Hitech Infra Venture Private Limited, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 4657/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Kavita Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhriincome Tax Officer-15(1)(1) Vs. Ellora Hitech Infra Venture Room No. 456, 4Th Floor, Private Limited Aayakar Bhawan, Plot No. 8, Ellora Fiesta, M.K. Road, Sector-11, Opp. Jui Nagar Mumbai-400020. Railway, Sanpada, Navi Mumbai-400706. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacce2217N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Ritika AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

assessee during the appellate proceedings. Needless to add, the assessee P a g e | 5 A.Y. 2012-13 shall be given due opportunity of being heard before deciding the issue and the assessee is also directed to make requisite compliance. 8. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue

Loreal India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 25 to 35 including 27(a) are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6623/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri(Physical Hearing)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 254(1)Section 4Section 92Section 928Section 92C

Sales ratio of the Appellant at 22 61% instead of 20.44%; 19. Without prejudice to the above, erred in not providing an opportunity of being heard to the Appellant at the time of re-working the ratio of 'AMP expenses to Sales' as directed by the Hon'ble DRP; Mark

Advantage India, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT (Central)-II, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 634/DEL/2019[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mehra, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT [DR]
Section 127Section 127(2)Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)

General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner way, 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, transfer any case from ... institution: Provided that no order under this sub-section shall be passed unless such trust or institution has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (4)Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (3), where a trust or an institution has been granted registration under clause

Jay Singh, Morena vs. ITO-1, Morena

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

ITA 117/AGR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Jay Singh, Vs. Ito, Gram Khaneta, Maharajpur, Ward-1, Morena, Madhya Pradesh Morena (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Cfwps1529H

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

grounds before the Learned AO, if he so desires, in support of his contentions. Needless to mention that the assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Mona Ashwin Lodha, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur

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

ITA 399/RPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.399/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Mona Ashwin Lodha Flat No.502, Vaitarana Building, Sir Pochkhanwala Road, Worli, Mumbai-400 023 Pan: Accpl7351B ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai, CIT-DR
Section 5

matter came up before the ITAT, it had failed to address the infirmity regarding the fact that the assessee was not afforded proper opportunity of being heard and the matter was dismissed ex-parte by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC which amounted to violation of principles of natural justice ... part of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In light of such decision, the petitioner ought to have been granted an opportunity of being heard which, partakes the characteristic of the fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 11. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay

Rinki Oil Extruction Pvt. Ltd., Rajim, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 322/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G.D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.322/Rpr/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2016-17 Rinki Oil Extruction Private Limited, Shri Ram Rice Mill Complex, Gariyaband Road, Nawapara Rajim, Raipur 493881 Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aadcr2190L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

matter came up before the ITAT, it had failed to address the infirmity regarding the fact that the assessee was not afforded proper opportunity of being heard and the matter was dismissed ex- parte by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC which amounted to violation of principles of natural justice ... part of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In light of such decision, the petitioner ought to have been granted an opportunity of being heard which, partakes the characteristic of the fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 11. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay

Apex Irrigation, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Rajkot

ITA 540/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Sept 2025AY 2017-18
For Respondent: Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ld. AR

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

Apex Irrigation, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Rajkot

In the result, the appeal

ITA 539/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainibefore Dr. Arjun Lal Sainibefore Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 539 & 540/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Apex Irrigation Income Tax Office, Ito Ward- Income Tax Office, Ito Ward S. No. 270, Plot No. 4, Behind Maruti S. No. 270, Plot No. 4, Behind Maruti Vs. 1(1)(1), Petrol Pump, Nh 8B To Gondal, Nr. Bus Petrol Pump, Nh 8B To Gondal, Nr. Bus- Income Tax Office, Race Course , Race Course Stand, Shapar, Veraval Ring Road, Rajkot – 360001 360001 Rajkot – 360024 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Pan/Gir No.: Aajfa4917D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) /Appellant) /Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. , Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/09/2025 : 17/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld
Section 270A

brought on record. materials brought on record. Considering the above facts, Considering the above facts, I note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not note that assessee has not given ... sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the L s case successfully before the Ld.CIT(A). I note that the assessee I note that the assessee’s quantum appeal in ITA 94/Rjt/2025 has been remitted back to the quantum appeal in ITA 94/Rjt/2025