← 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

Manohar Manak Alloys Private Limited, Grant Road East, Mumbai vs. Central Circle 3(2), Mumbai, Nariman Point

ITA 54/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Singh (VirtuallyFor Respondent: Shri Annavarn Kasuri, SR. AR
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

substance, the matter is restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to assist proactively during the set aside appellate proceeding, failing which the ld. CIT(A) would be at liberty

Mahesh Rajaram Kukreja, Thane vs. Assistant Commissioner, Vashi Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1977/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankarmahesh Rajaram Kukreja, V/S. Office Of Assistant Commissioner A-1601, 02, 03, Sai Pride, Plot बनाम Of Income Tax, Circle – 28(2), No. 05, Sector 18, Sanpada, Mumbai, Thane – 400705, Navi Mumbai – 400705, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Ahbpk5085H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kasuri (Sr.AR)
Section 143(3)

cross examination for payment directly made to M/s Kushal Biotech Limited, and how he have vested right in said land and without proper opportunity of being heard order passed that is more than four time of the income declared in return by assessee. 3. At the outset, it is noticed ... while applying the principles of P a g e | 6 A.Y. 2012-13 Mahesh Rajaram Kukreja, Thane natural justice after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 11/09/2025. PAWAN SINGH

Rajesh Laxmichand Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(3)(3), Mumbai

ITA 1615/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Rajesh Laxmichand Jain Income Tax Office, Ward 41(3)(3) 188, Squarter Colony, Malwani Colony, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, 41-43, Vs. Malad West – 400095 Maharashtra, Bandra West, Mumbai 400051 India Pan/Gir No.: Adzpj4846K (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri H D Save, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Annavaran Kasuri, Sr. Ar. Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.09.2025 O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am:

For Appellant: Shri H D Save, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kasuri, SR. AR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

investment by the assessee and to re-adjudicate the matter afresh. 8. Needless to say, the assessee shall be provided with reasonable opportunity of being heard in the set aside assessment proceedings. 9. Resultantly the appeal of assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court

Ravindra Pratap Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward-3(1), Gurgaon

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

ITA 2236/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaravindra Pratap Singh, Vs. Ito, Ward 3 (1), 292, Espace, Nirvana Country, Gurgaon. Gurgaon – 122 081 (Haryana). (Pan : Awxps4068F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2025 Date Of Order : 11.09.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [For Short ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 18.07.2024 For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. We Are Proceeding To Decide The Appeal With The Assistance Of Ld. Dr Of The Revenue. 3. At The Time Of Hearing, It Is Observed From The Record That The Assessee Filed Additional Evidences During The Appellate Proceedings Before The Ld. Cit (A) & The Ld. Cit (A) Observed That No Petition Has Been Filed By The Assessee For Admission Of Additional

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

admit the additional evidences filed before the ld. CIT (A) and are of the opinion that assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard on merit. Therefore, we restore the matter to the file of Assessing Officer and direct the Assessing Officer to decide the issues on merits ... course after going through the additional evidences filed by the assessee and also give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also direct assessee to make proper submissions and appear before the Assessing Officer on the date of hearing and cooperate with the tax authorities. Accordingly, the appeal

New Age Healing Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-18(1), Delhi

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

ITA 127/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

merit and prayed that this issue may be remitted back to 2 the ld. CIT(A) with the prayer to give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He submitted that there are reasons for assessee for not appearing before the first appellate authority. 3. On the other hand ... appeal despite being granted several opportunities. In our considered view and in the interest of justice, assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard on merit. Therefore, we restore the matter to the file of ld. CIT (A) and direct ld. CIT (A) to give an opportunity

Raj Kumar, Uttar Pradesh vs. ITO Ward 1(2)(2), Meerut

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

ITA 356/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Dutt Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Officer also decided the issues ex-parte. In our considered view and in the interest of justice, assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard on merit. Therefore, we restore the matter to the file of Assessing Officer and direct the Assessing Officer to give an opportunity

Mr Abhishek Raesh Raikar, Margao vs. ITO, Ward - 1, Margao

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

ITA 15/PAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (Judicial Member)

Section 69A

afresh adjudication on merits and the CIT(A) 4 ITA. No. 15/PAN 2024. Abhishek Ramesh Raikar.. shall provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee should also cooperate in submitting the information for early disposal of the appeal and the grounds of appeal

Mahendra Prasad Yadav, Dipadihkalan vs. ITO-1 Ambikapur, Ambikapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 526/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Raipur10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.526/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Mahendra Prasad Yadav Principal Saraswati Shishu Mandir, Dipadihkalan, Shankargarh, Surguja (C.G.)-497 118 Pan: Aebpy7047Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1, Ambikapur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.K Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 251

these submissions/evidences in the present case. Since the written submission and documentary evidences has direct bearing on the issue in the present case, opportunity of being heard needs to be provided to the appellant. 6.4 In order to tackle such cases so that proper justice is done to the assessee ... section 251 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is hereby directed to make fresh assessment order after providing sufficient opportunities of being heard and considering all the material facts, written submission and documentary evidences submitted by the appellant during the appellate proceedings as well

Ashwani Dwivedi, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-1(3), Bhilai, Durg

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

ITA 498/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Raipur10 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.498/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Ashwani Dwivedi M/S. Vandana Steel Traders, Junwani Road, Pushpak Nagar, Bhilai-490 020 (C.G.), Dist. Durg Pan: Aiapd9101B

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 44A

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

Ranmalbhai Palabhai Chhuchhar, Jamnagar, Gujarat vs. Assessing Officer, Jamnagar, Gujarat

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

ITA 503/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Ms. Madhvi Khetiya, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147

merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. 6. 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

Ranmalbhai Palabhai Chhuchhar, Jamnagar, Gujarat vs. Assessing Officer, Jamnagar, Gujarat

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

ITA 502/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Ms. Madhvi Khetiya, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147

merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. 6. 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

Fusion Granito Private Limited, Morbi vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Rajkot

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

ITA 190/RJT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.190/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Fusion Granito Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Principal Commissioner Of Income Revenue Survey No.555/P1/91, Tax-1, Vs. Nr. Khokhra Hanuman Temple, 2Nd Jetpar Road, Morbi-363641 Rajkot, Floor, “Aayakar Bhawan”, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcf 0696 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri Praveen Verma, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 24/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 10/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Correctness Of The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1, Rajkot [In Short ‘Ld. Pcit’], Dated 27.03.2023, Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Grievances Raised By The Assessee, Which, Being Interconnected, Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows: “1. The Revision Order U/S 263 Of The Act Dated 28.03.2023 Is Bad In Law. 2. The Hon’Ble Pr. Cit-1, Rajkot Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Completing The Revision Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Act Hurriedly In Short Span Of Time Fusion Granito Pvt. Ltd.

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

span of time Fusion Granito Pvt. Ltd. (effectively just a week only) without providing reasonable opportunity to furnish the complete submissions and an opportunity of being heard to the appellant even after specific requests thereof in gross violation of the settled principles of natural justice. 3. The Hon’ble Pr.CIT ... However, we note that assessee could not prove the source of the source about share capital, because assessee was not given adequate opportunity of being heard, during the revision proceedings, under section 263 of the Act, which is clearly getting reflected in the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee

Katargam Industrial Estate Shedholders, Surat vs. CIT(E), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 698/SRT/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Sept 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 124(1)(ac)Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 253(3)

merit before the CIT(E). It is settled law that principles of natural justice require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest its case. Therefore, without delving much into the merits of the case, in the interests of justice, we set aside the order ... also set aside and remitted to the file of CIT(E) for de novo adjudication after granting reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant. For statistical purposes, this appeal of the assessee is also treated as allowed. 14. In the result, appeal of the assessee is also

Shree Siddhivinayk Charitable Trust Jiyav, Surat vs. CIT(E), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 697/SRT/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Sept 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 124(1)(ac)Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 253(3)

merit before the CIT(E). It is settled law that principles of natural justice require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest its case. Therefore, ITA Nos.697 & 698/SRT/2025/AY 2025-26 Shree Siddhivinayak Charitable Trust Jiyav & Katargam Industrial Estate Shedeholders without delving much into ... also set aside and remitted to the file of CIT(E) for de novo adjudication after granting reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant. For statistical purposes, this appeal of the assessee is also treated as allowed. 14. In the result, appeal of the assessee is also

The Muthalamada East Ksheera Vyavasaya Coop Society Ltd Nop4D, Muthalamada vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-2, Aaykar Bhavan

ITA 570/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: the CIT(A). During the appellate proceeding, the Ld. CIT(A) noted that

For Appellant: Shri Rajendran, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. AR
Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 69A

appeal being barred by limitation and (b) the ground raised by the Assessee on merits afresh after granting the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In terms of aforesaid Ground No. 1 to 3 raised by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. 4 Assessment Year

Shalom Charitable Ministries of India, Palakkad vs. ITO (Exemption), Thrissur

ITA 548/COCH/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 12A(1)(b)Section 14Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

appeal, we find that the Assessee has contended that the appeal preferred by the Assessee was dismissed by NFAC without granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard and in clear violation of the provisions contained in NFAC Scheme, 2021. We find that before the NFAC, the Assessee had raised ... NFAC to adjudicate the grounds raised by the Assessee in the appeal before the NFAC afresh after granting the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard as per law. The Assessee has directed to cooperate in the appellate proceedings before the NFAC and file all the relevant submissions/documents/details on which

Shalom Charitable Ministries of India, Palakkad vs. ITO (Exemption), Thrissur

ITA 545/COCH/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 12A(1)(b)Section 14Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

appeal, we find that the Assessee has contended that the appeal preferred by the Assessee was dismissed by NFAC without granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard and in clear violation of the provisions contained in NFAC Scheme, 2021. We find that before the NFAC, the Assessee had raised ... NFAC to adjudicate the grounds raised by the Assessee in the appeal before the NFAC afresh after granting the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard as per law. The Assessee has directed to cooperate in the appellate proceedings before the NFAC and file all the relevant submissions/documents/details on which

Kishan Assudani, Bhopal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, 3(1), Bhopal

Appeal of the assessed is allowed for statistical

ITA 749/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshikishan Assudani, Acit 3(1), बनाम/ Prop. Kishan Assudani, Bhopal Vs. Plot No.6, Mainroad, Gandhi Nagar, Bhopal (Pan:Aeupa8876Q) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee By Shri Arpit Gaur, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 02.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 40A(3)

learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in passing the ex-parte order without giving proper and effective opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 2. That, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred in not adjudicating the appeal on merits

Sanskriti Build-Dev Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 6(2), Jaipur

18. In view of the above findings, this appeal filed by the assessee deserves to be allowed

ITA 417/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Learned Cit(A), While Challenging Assessment Order Dated 29.05.2023, Relating To The Assessment Year 2014-15. Said Appeal Has Been Dismissed Vide Impugned Order Dated 29.01.2025, Passed By Learned Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Whereby Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148A

information which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; 4 Sanskriti Build-Dev Pvt. Ltd, Jaipur. provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, with the prior approval of specified authority, by serving upon him a notice to show cause within such time

Rudraksh Professional Education Trust, Jaipur vs. CIT(Exemption), Jaipur

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

ITA 278/JPR/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2024-25

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

For Appellant: Shri Sarwan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 12A

appeal. ‘’1.1 The Impugned order u/s 12AA of the Act dated 28.12.2024 is bad in law and onfacts, without providing adequate & reasonable opportunity of being heard, being without jurisdiction and for various other reasons and hence the same may kindly be quashed. 1.2. The Ld. CIT(E) erred ... well as on the facts of the case in passing the exparte order without providing the adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence the order of is contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case, the same kindly be quashed. 2 RUDRAKSH PROFESSIONAL