← 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

Rajinder Singh, Mansa vs. Income Tax Officer, Mansa

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

ITA 310/ASR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: Sh. K. R. Jain, Adv
Section 147Section 148Section 208Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 69A

conducted and report may be obtained from the AO as per provisions of law. 12. The assessee may be allowed reasonable opportunity of being heard. 13. We have not expressed any opinion on the authenticity and genuineness of the documentary evidences that has been submitted before us, which however, needs

M/S Subhash Stone Industries Private Limited, Nainital vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 109/ALLD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad22 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(3)Section 43B

fresh adjudication on these specific I.T.A. No.109/Alld/2019 Assessment Year:2014-15 3 points in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open court on 22/08/2025

Cheerla Srinivas, Tanuku vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tanuku

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

ITA 360/VIZ/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 360/Viz/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13) Cheerla Srinivas V. Income Tax Officer - Ward – 1 D.No. 23-12-1 Income Tax Office Near Water Tank Aayakar Bhavan, Sajjapuram Tanuku Sajjapuram, Tanuku – 534211 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Agfpc1785P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the case on merits in accordance with law by providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee

Satya Venkata Krishna Ravi Prasad Koduri, Rajahmundry vs. ACIT, Circle - 1, Rajahmundry

ITA 294/VIZ/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon'Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon'Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 290 & 291/Viz/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Veera Venkata Ramakrishna Mohana Rao Koduri Flat No. 201, Sri Towers Nh-16 Venkateswara Nagar Syamalanagar East Godavari District - 533103 Andhra Pradesh V. Acit - Circle – 1 Ayakkar Bhawan Veerabadhrapuram Rajahmundry – 533105 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0888C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) आईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 293 & 294/Viz/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Satya Venkata Krishna Ravi Prasad Koduri 81-10-3/6, Venkateswaranagar Near Ima Halla, Danavaipeta East Godavari District Andhra Pradesh V. Acit - Circle – 1 Ayakkar Bhawan Veerabadhrapuram Rajahmundry - 533105 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0889D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) करदाता का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By सुनवाई समाप्त होने की तिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Smt Hemalatha K, Ca Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit(Dr) 05.08.2025 22.08.2025

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 263Section 270A

aside the assessment order by directing the Ld. AO to initiate the penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard. Page No. 4 6. On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld.Pr.CIT, assessee is in appeal before us by raising following grounds

Satya Venkata Krishna Ravi Prasad Koduri, East Godhavari vs. ACIT, Circle - 1, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 293/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 263Section 270A

aside the assessment order by directing the Ld. AO to initiate the penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard. Page No. 4 ITA No. 290 & 291/VIZ/2025 Veera Venkata Ramakrishna Mohana Rao Koduri ITA Nos.293 & 294/VIZ/2025 Satya Venkata Krishna Ravi Prasad Koduri ... erroneous, in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such enquiries as he deemed necessary, pass such orders thereon as the circumstances of the case justify

Veera Venkata Ramakrishna Mohan Rao Koduri, East Godhavari vs. ACIT, Cirlce - 1, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 291/VIZ/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 290 & 291/Viz/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Veera Venkata Ramakrishna V. Acit – Circle – 1 Mohana Rao Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan Flat No. 201, Sri Towers Nh-16 Veerabadhrapuram Venkateswara Nagar Rajahmundry – 533105 Syamalanagar Andhra Pradesh East Godavari District - 533103 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0888C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 293 & 294/Viz/2025 निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Satya Venkata Krishna Ravi V. Acit – Circle – 1 Prasad Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan 81-10-3/6, Venkateswaranagar Veerabadhrapuram Near Ima Halla, Danavaipeta Rajahmundry – 533105 East Godavari District Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0889D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Smt Hemalatha K, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit(Dr)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153CSection 263Section 270A

aside the assessment order by directing the Ld. AO to initiate the penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard. Page No. 4 ITA No. 290 & 291/VIZ/2025 Veera Venkata Ramakrishna Mohana Rao Koduri ITA Nos.293 & 294/VIZ/2025 Satya Venkata Krishna Ravi Prasad Koduri ... erroneous, in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such enquiries as he deemed necessary, pass such orders thereon as the circumstances of the case justify

Veera Venkata Ramakrishna Mohana Rao Koduri, Rajahmundry vs. ACIT, Circle - 1, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 290/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 290 & 291/Viz/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Veera Venkata Ramakrishna V. Acit – Circle – 1 Mohana Rao Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan Flat No. 201, Sri Towers Nh-16 Veerabadhrapuram Venkateswara Nagar Rajahmundry – 533105 Syamalanagar Andhra Pradesh East Godavari District - 533103 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0888C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 293 & 294/Viz/2025 निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Satya Venkata Krishna Ravi V. Acit – Circle – 1 Prasad Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan 81-10-3/6, Venkateswaranagar Veerabadhrapuram Near Ima Halla, Danavaipeta Rajahmundry – 533105 East Godavari District Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0889D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Smt Hemalatha K, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit(Dr)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153CSection 263Section 270A

aside the assessment order by directing the Ld. AO to initiate the penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard. Page No. 4 ITA No. 290 & 291/VIZ/2025 Veera Venkata Ramakrishna Mohana Rao Koduri ITA Nos.293 & 294/VIZ/2025 Satya Venkata Krishna Ravi Prasad Koduri ... erroneous, in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such enquiries as he deemed necessary, pass such orders thereon as the circumstances of the case justify

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

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Assessee as well as stay application is dismissed

ITA 544/COCH/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 271BSection 44A

submissions or clarify its position in person. It is a settled principle that an order passed without providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard is void in law and liable to be set aside. To seek for justification it filed an appeal before the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi ... dismissal order passed by the NFAC before this Tribunal on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and denial of reasonable opportunity of being heard. We note that the Assessee has not disputed the findings returned by NFAC that the Ld. CIT(A), Thrissur has, vide Order dated

M/S.Cool Minds Technologies P. Ltd, Cochin vs. The ACIT, Cochin

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 375/COCH/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: CIT(A) the it was claimed by the Assessee that deduction under Section 10B of the Act was initially claimed by the Assessee under the bona fide belief that it is entitled to deduction under Section 10B of the Act. The CITT(A) dismissed the appeal of the Assessee agreeing with the Assessing Officer and holding that the Assessing Officer was justified in not considering the claim made by the Assessee under Section 10A of the Act. Now the Assessee is in

For Appellant: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263

that the assessee entitled to deduction u/s 10A, then such deduction shall be allowed to the assessee. The AO shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before completing the proceedings. 6. Ground Nos. (iv) and (v) relate to the claim of depreciation on software developed ... support its claim for deduction under Section 10A of the Act. It is clarified that the Assessing Officer shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before completing the proceedings. In terms of the aforesaid, the grounds raised by the Assessee are allowed to the extent stated

Akhilesh Kumar Patel, Shahdol vs. Income Tax Officer Dhar, Dhar

ITA 627/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 147

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

Tardigrade Healthtech Private Limited, Lucknow -Up vs. DCIT, ACIT, NFAC, NFAC Delhi

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

ITA 155/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250(6)Section 68

file of learned CIT(A) with the direction to pass de novo order on merits in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open court

Amravati District Chemist & Drugist Association, Amravati vs. Hon. CIT(Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 361/PUN/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Aug 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 142(1)

registration granted under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should not be cancelled. The assessee was also given opportunity of being heard vide the said notice. The assessee was specifically informed that in the event of failure to comply by the due date, the application shall be liable ... assessee through e- portal and email. However, the assessee neither submitted explanation to the show cause notice till date nor availed the opportunity of being heard. 7. Since, the assessee has not furnished any explanation to the discrepancies communicated to it, it is presumed that the assessee has nothing

Sangam Charitable Organisation, K.V.Rangareddy vs. CIT (Exemption), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 999/HYD/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Aug 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, Hemalatha KFor Respondent: MS. U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 12A

filed by the assessee in Form-10AB for granting permanent registration u/sec.12AB and 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee and also considering relevant evidences filed in support of it’s applications. 10. In the result, appeals of the Assessee

Sangam Charitable Organisation, K V Ranga Reddy vs. CIT(Exemption), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 998/HYD/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Aug 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, Hemalatha KFor Respondent: MS. U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 12A

filed by the assessee in Form-10AB for granting permanent registration u/sec.12AB and 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee and also considering relevant evidences filed in support of it’s applications. 10. In the result, appeals of the Assessee

M/S. Abheek Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 4(3), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 232/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 144Section 147Section 153(3)Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 69A

aside the assessment made u/s 144 and refer the case back to the Assessing Officer for making a fresh assessment, after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to file necessary documents for substantiating its case and not seek unnecessary adjournment

Tapas Kumar Ghosh, Murshidabad vs. ITO, Ward-56(3), Murshidabad

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2602/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Him. The Facts Regarding This Issue Are Recorded On Page 3 Of The Impugned Order & It Is Clearly Mentioned That The Assessee Has Not Filed Any Reason Why The Delay Should Be Condoned & The Appeal Be Admitted For Adjudication.

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 249(3)Section 250

facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Addl/JT. CIT(A) erred in passing the order ex-parte without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard and without considering the facts of the case and thereby, erred in sustaining the addition amounted of Rs.12,62,680/-, which was wrongly ... addition of Rs. 12,62,680/- by providing only one opportunity of hearing and therefore, the addition was sustained without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard which was arbitrary and unlawful. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Addl./Jt. CIT(A) failed

Hyundai Steel India Pvt. Ltd., Kanchipuram vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 63/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.63/Chny/2025 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154

after considering the Hyundai Steel India Pvt. Ltd. :- 5 -: judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court (supra) and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 22nd

T1461 Koothanallur Pacb Ltd., Thiruvarur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Thiruvarur

In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2195/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2195/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & S.A. No. 73/Chny/2025 [In Ita No. 2195/Chny/2025] T1461 Koothanallur Pacb Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Rep. By Its Secretary Mr. T. Ward 1, Singaravelu, No. 27, Big Nazaar Street, Thiruvarur. Koothanallur Post, Mannargudi Taluk, Thiruvarur 614 101. [Pan:Aacat6581C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. T.V. Paarkavi, Advocate For Shri J. Ashok, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Sivakumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 19.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.10.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2

For Appellant: Ms. T.V. Paarkavi, Advocate for Shri J. Ashok, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C. Sivakumar, Addl. CIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 147

condone the delay and adjudicate the issues on 5 I.T.A. No.2195/Chny/25 & S.A. No. 73/Chny/25 merits by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 10. We note that the assessee has not filed its return of income under section 139 of the Act. The assessee has placed copy

Panjavarnam Sivasubramanian, Tirupur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Faceless Assessment

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

ITA 184/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.M. Siva Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 44ASection 69A

comply with our directions. The CIT(A) shall decide the merits of the issue raised in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, we set aside the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) with direction to the CIT(A) to decide the issue

Sri. Krishna Spinning and Weaving Mills Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 852/BANG/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2023-24 M/S. Sri Krishna Spinning & Weaving Mills Vs. Dcit, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 6(1)(1), No.1, Subramanyapura, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 061. Pan : Aabcs 7730 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Megha, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.08.2025

For Appellant: Ms. Megha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 115BSection 143(1)

regime as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act after examination/verification of the claims made by the assessee after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and assessee is directed to substantiate its claim with cogent documents. 3. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee