← 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

Vinod Jindal, Faridabad, Haryana vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad, Haryana

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1921/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 & 1923/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 To 2017-18 बनाम Shri Vinod Jindal, Dcit, H.No.1203A, Tower C-3, Vs. Central Circle-2, Srs Pearl Heights, Faridabad. Sector-87, Faridabad. Pan No.Aenpj1202Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250Section 270ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

called ambiguous wording in the notice [has not] impaired or prejudiced the right of the assessee to a reasonable opportunity of being heard". It went onto observe that for sustaining the plea of natural justice on the ground of absence of opportunity, "it has to be established that prejudice

Vinod Jindal, Faridabad, Haryana vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad, Haryana

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1920/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 & 1923/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 To 2017-18 बनाम Shri Vinod Jindal, Dcit, H.No.1203A, Tower C-3, Vs. Central Circle-2, Srs Pearl Heights, Faridabad. Sector-87, Faridabad. Pan No.Aenpj1202Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250Section 270ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

called ambiguous wording in the notice [has not] impaired or prejudiced the right of the assessee to a reasonable opportunity of being heard". It went onto observe that for sustaining the plea of natural justice on the ground of absence of opportunity, "it has to be established that prejudice

Vinod Jindal, Faridabad, Haryana vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad, Haryana

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1919/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 & 1923/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 To 2017-18 बनाम Shri Vinod Jindal, Dcit, H.No.1203A, Tower C-3, Vs. Central Circle-2, Srs Pearl Heights, Faridabad. Sector-87, Faridabad. Pan No.Aenpj1202Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250Section 270ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

called ambiguous wording in the notice [has not] impaired or prejudiced the right of the assessee to a reasonable opportunity of being heard". It went onto observe that for sustaining the plea of natural justice on the ground of absence of opportunity, "it has to be established that prejudice

Vinod Jindal, Faridabad, Haryana vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad, Haryana

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1918/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 & 1923/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 To 2017-18 बनाम Shri Vinod Jindal, Dcit, H.No.1203A, Tower C-3, Vs. Central Circle-2, Srs Pearl Heights, Faridabad. Sector-87, Faridabad. Pan No.Aenpj1202Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250Section 270ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

called ambiguous wording in the notice [has not] impaired or prejudiced the right of the assessee to a reasonable opportunity of being heard". It went onto observe that for sustaining the plea of natural justice on the ground of absence of opportunity, "it has to be established that prejudice

Eagle Jewels Private Limited, Karol Bagh, New Delhi vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8(2), Delhi

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

ITA 1562/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143

with a direction to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the Appeal afresh on its merits in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 8. In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court

Amj Marketing Private Limited, Noida vs. ITO Ward-Ward 5(1)(1) G Budh Nagar, G Budh Nagar

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

ITA 1543/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Amj Marketing Private Vs Ito Limited Ward-5(1)(1), G Budh Nagar, Imperial Court, Tower 3, Room No. 303, Aayakar Flat No. 2501, Jaypee Wish Bhawan, A-2D Sector 24, Town, Sector, 128, Noida Nodia (Gautam Budh Nagar) 201304Uttar Pradesh Utttar Pradesh Pan: Aaeca6801A Appellant Respondent Assessee By None Revenue By Sh. Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/09/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac’ For Short), New Delhi Dated 21/02/2025 For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, An Assessment Order Came To Be Passed On 28/03/2024 Passed U/S 147 R.W. Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' For Short) By Computing The Income Of The Assessee At Rs. 1,16,15,987/-By Making Certain Additions. Aggrieved By The Assessment Order Dated 28/03/2024, The Assessee Preferred

Section 144Section 147

with a direction to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the Appeal afresh on its merits in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 3ITA No.1543/Del/2025 AMG Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO 5. In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Ajay Kumar Gupta, Panipat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1, Panipat

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

ITA 1529/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ajay Kumar Gupta, Vs Income Tax Officer, 106, M/S Aggarwal Yarn Ward-1, House, S. D. College Road, Panipat, Haryana Panipat, Haryana-132103 Pan: Aappg0343K Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Amit Kaushik, Adv, Sh. Himanshu Sharma, Itp Revenue By Sh. Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/09/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac’ For Short), New Delhi Dated 10/01/2025 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, An Assessment Order Came To Be Passed On 08/03/2023 Passed U/S 147 R.W. Section 144B Of Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' For Short), By Computing The Income Of The Assessee At Rs. 69,77,220/-, As Against The Returned Income Of Rs. 11,70,620/- By Making Disallowance Of Rs. 58,06,600/- On Account Of Bogus Purchases. Aggrieved By The Assessment Order Dated Ajay Kumar Gupta Vs. Ito

Section 144BSection 147

Assessee preferred the present Appeal. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has provided no opportunity of being heard to the Assessee and in violation of principals of natural justice, dismissed the appeal of the Assessee. 4. Per contra, the Ld. Ld. Departmental ... with a direction to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the Appeal afresh on its merits in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. Ajay Kumar Gupta Vs. ITO 6. In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order

Rakam Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-21(1), Delhi

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

ITA 1180/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Rakam Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito F-33/3, Okhla Industrial Area, Ward-21(1), Phase-Ii, New Delhi-110020 Delhi Pan: Aaacr028G Appellant Respondent Assessee By Ms. Mansi Jain, Ca & Sh. Mohan Gupta, Ca Revenue By Sh. Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/09/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal

Section 143(3)Section 144B

Assessee preferred the present Appeal. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has provided no opportunity of being heard to the Assessee and in violation of principals of natural justice, dismissed the appeal of the Assessee. 8. The Ld. Department's Representative relying ... with a direction to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the Appeal afresh on its merits in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 10. In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court

Mala Kapoor, Moradabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Moradabad

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

ITA 1143/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 148A

decide the Appeal afresh on its merits 4 Mala Kapoor Vs. ITO in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 6. In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 12 September

Bmw India Pvt Ltd, Haryana vs. ACIT Circle1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2024/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Bmw India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner 2Nd Floor, Oberoi Centre Of Income Tax, Circle (1), Building No. 11, Dlf Cyber Hsiidc Building, Vanijya City Dlf Phase, Gurgaon, Nikunj Udhyog Vihar, Haryuana, 122001 Phase-5, Gurgaon, Pan: Aabcb7140C Haryana Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Himanshu S. Sinha-Adv, Ms. Kanika Jain, Adv& Sh. Prashant Meharchandani, Adv Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 06/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/09/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Challenging The Final Assessment Order Passed By Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -1(1)-Gurgaon, Dated 28/06/2022 U/S254R.W. Section 143(3)/144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' For Short).

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 254Section 254rSection 92C

Officer shall, in conformity with the directions, complete, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 153, the assessment without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee, within one month from the end of the month in which such direction is received.” 8. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional

Dheeraj Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

ITA 6216/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

For Appellant: Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. James Singson, CIT, DR
Section 11Section 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 274

docketed in the order-sheet and a copy of the draft order and covering letter filed in the relevant miscellaneous records folder. Due opportunity of being heard should be given to the assessee by the supervisory officer giving approval to the proposed block assessment, at least one month before

Dheeraj Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

ITA 6215/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

For Appellant: Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. James Singson, CIT, DR
Section 11Section 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 274

docketed in the order-sheet and a copy of the draft order and covering letter filed in the relevant miscellaneous records folder. Due opportunity of being heard should be given to the assessee by the supervisory officer giving approval to the proposed block assessment, at least one month before

Dheeraj Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

ITA 6214/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

For Appellant: Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. James Singson, CIT, DR
Section 11Section 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 274

docketed in the order-sheet and a copy of the draft order and covering letter filed in the relevant miscellaneous records folder. Due opportunity of being heard should be given to the assessee by the supervisory officer giving approval to the proposed block assessment, at least one month before

Dheeraj Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

ITA 6160/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

For Appellant: Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. James Singson, CIT, DR
Section 11Section 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 274

docketed in the order-sheet and a copy of the draft order and covering letter filed in the relevant miscellaneous records folder. Due opportunity of being heard should be given to the assessee by the supervisory officer giving approval to the proposed block assessment, at least one month before

Dheeraj Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6159/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

For Appellant: Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. James Singson, CIT, DR
Section 11Section 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 274

docketed in the order-sheet and a copy of the draft order and covering letter filed in the relevant miscellaneous records folder. Due opportunity of being heard should be given to the assessee by the supervisory officer giving approval to the proposed block assessment, at least one month before ... satisfaction of the Addl. CIT is required to the extent that the AO has looked into all seized material and has given proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee by confronting the evidences and the proposed additions. The Addl. CIT, while granting approvalunder section 153D of the Act, does

Dheeraj Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

ITA 6158/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

For Appellant: Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. James Singson, CIT, DR
Section 11Section 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 274

docketed in the order-sheet and a copy of the draft order and covering letter filed in the relevant miscellaneous records folder. Due opportunity of being heard should be given to the assessee by the supervisory officer giving approval to the proposed block assessment, at least one month before

Prem Chand Singh, Chatra vs. Pr.CIT, Dhanbad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 351/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.107/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Pravin Engineering Pvt. Ltd.......................…...........................……….……Appellant Plot No.6A, Phase-1, Industrial Area, Adityapur, Jharkhand - 832109. [Pan: Aabcp0358E] Vs. Acit, National E-Assessment Centre, New Delhi.……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 11, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 28.02.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.73,21,980/-. The Case Of The Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act Assessing Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.84,67,210/-. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Pointed Out That The Tax Audit Report Has Identified That The Assessee Paid Its Directors A Sum Of Rs.11,36,000/- As Bonus Or Commission Which Was Otherwise Payable As Profits Or Dividend & This Amount Was Covered By Section 36(1)(Ii) Of The Act. The Assessing Officer Disallowed The Claim Of Commission As Claimed By The Assessee.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(ii)

issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to re- examine the issue afresh after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and to decide the appeal on merits of the case. We direct the assessee to comply all notices during the remand proceedings

Pravin Engineering Private Limited, Jamshedpur vs. ACIT, National E-Assessment Centre

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 107/RAN/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi11 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.107/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Pravin Engineering Pvt. Ltd.......................…...........................……….……Appellant Plot No.6A, Phase-1, Industrial Area, Adityapur, Jharkhand - 832109. [Pan: Aabcp0358E] Vs. Acit, National E-Assessment Centre, New Delhi.……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 11, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 28.02.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.73,21,980/-. The Case Of The Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act Assessing Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.84,67,210/-. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Pointed Out That The Tax Audit Report Has Identified That The Assessee Paid Its Directors A Sum Of Rs.11,36,000/- As Bonus Or Commission Which Was Otherwise Payable As Profits Or Dividend & This Amount Was Covered By Section 36(1)(Ii) Of The Act. The Assessing Officer Disallowed The Claim Of Commission As Claimed By The Assessee.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(ii)

issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to re- examine the issue afresh after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and to decide the appeal on merits of the case. We direct the assessee to comply all notices during the remand proceedings

Siva Prasad Vedula, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Bhilai, Durg

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

ITA 49/RPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.49/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Siva Prasad Vedula House No.376/6, Street No.7, Pragati Nagar, Risali, Bhilai-490 006 Pan: Adgpv7445M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Manisha Kinnu, CIT-DR
Section 147

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

Umarbhai Mamadbhai Kumbhar, Bhadreshwar Tal. Mundra, Dist. Kutchh vs. The ITO Ward 5, Mundra

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

ITA 471/RJT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Smt. Astha Maniyar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147

merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. 5. Considering the above facts, I note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the Id. CIT(A). I note that the Id. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee ... note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. However, on account of non-compliance attitude of the assessee, I imposed a cost