← 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

Bharatkumar Rajashree, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 1279/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Smt. Bharatkumar Rajashree, Income Tax Officer, C/O. M/S. Travenza Holidays, No. Ward-7(2)(1), 180/A, 16Th Main 4Th ‘T’ Block, Bengaluru. Jayanagar, Vs. Bengaluru-560041. Pan No : Auopr4145D Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Madhusudhan, Advocate Respondent By : Sri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate-Standing Counsel For Revenue Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote: This Appeal Filed By Smt. Bharatkumar Rajashree Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(Appeals) (Nfac) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For Asst Year 2016-17 On 05/03/2025 Emanating From Assessment Order Dated 22/12/2018 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised 11 Grounds Of Appeal Which Are Argumentative In Nature & Mainly They Revolve Around The Decision Of The Ld. Cit(A)’S In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 33,45,000/- (Being 1/3Rd Of The Entire Amount For Being Joint Holder

For Appellant: Sri Madhusudhan, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

members) made by the Ld. Ld. AO towards unexplained cash credits and dismissing the appeal of the assessee ex-parte without providing proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 3. Findings and Analysis: We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case

Krishna Processors & Industries Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax 4 Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 2877/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2877/Mum/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2020-21 Krishna Processors & Industries Pvt. Ltd. 312, 2Nd Floor, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai-400 002 (Mh) Pan : Aadck1539Q

For Appellant: Shri Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 135Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 37(1)Section 80GSection 80G(2)

dated 14.02.2025 has been issued online through ITBA fixing the case on 21.02.2025 to the assessee to provide an opportunity of being heard.” 4. In response to aforesaid query, the assessee filed a submission before the Ld. Pr. CIT, stating that the amount for CSR expenses can be utilized towards

Akola Trading Company LLP, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2448/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Shashank MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

aside the impugned order and restore the issue to learned First Appellate Authority for adjudication on merits, after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 9. Insofar as ITA No. 2293/Mum/2025, challenging the imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is concerned

Akola Trading Company LLP (Successor of Akola Trading Company Pvt Ltd), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2293/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Shashank MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

aside the impugned order and restore the issue to learned First Appellate Authority for adjudication on merits, after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 9. Insofar as ITA No. 2293/Mum/2025, challenging the imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is concerned

Enviro Creators Foundation, Maharashtra vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai

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

ITA 2231/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarenviro Creators V/S. Commissioner Of Income Tax Foundation, 119, High बनाम (Exemptions), 601, Cumballa Tech Industrial Estate, Hill, Mtnl Te Building, Peddar Caves Road, Jogeshwari Road, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh East, Mumbai – 400 Marg, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai - 060, Maharashtra 400026, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaece5235A .. Appellant/अपीलार्थी Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Bansal,ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iv)

about the reasons for such rejection clearly amounts to violation of the principle of natural justice as the assessee was not afforded reasonable opportunities of being heard to submit its contentions in defence to the basis of rejection of application. Considering such facts and circumstances of the instant case ... order to provide a fair opportunity of being heard and to represent its case in a judicious manner, the matter needs to be revisited by the ld. CIT(E) after affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The matter

Nisar Ahmad, Bulandsahar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(3)(1) Bulandshahar, Bulandshahar

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

ITA 4005/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON'BLE (Vice President)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sangeet Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 144

issues in dispute to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, with the directions to consider all the evidences, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, for which ld. DR has no objection. 5. In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Shahaalam, Bulandsahar vs. ITO Ward 2(3)(1), Bulandsahar U.P

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

ITA 3994/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2016-17 Shahaalam, Vs. Ito, Ward 2(3)(1), So-Giya Wara, Bulandshahar, Sikandrabad, Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh (Pan: Bgqps0182J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Sh. Sangeet Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2025 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Emanating From The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi Dated 18.06.2025 Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee, Despite Issue Of Notice Of Hearing, Hence, I Am Proceeding Exparte Qua The Assessee, After Hearing The Ld. Dr & Perusing The Records. 3. I Have Heard The Ld. Dr & Perused The Records. Upon Careful Consideration, I Find That Ao Has Passed The Exparte Order U/S. 144 Of The Act & Also Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal On Account Of Limitation For Not Filing The Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A). After Perusing The Records, I Am Of Considered View That Delay In Dispute In Filing The Appeal Before The Cit(A) Needs To Be Condoned. Hence, I Condone The Same. It Is Also Noted That Ld. Cit(A) Has Not Discussed The Issues On Merits. Hence, In The Interest Of Justice, I Remit Back The Issues In Dispute

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sangeet Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 144

file of the AO for fresh adjudication, with the directions to consider each and every aspect of the matter, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, for which ld. DR has no objection. 4. In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes Order

Daljit Harnam Kour, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-45(5), Delhi

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

ITA 3989/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Bleasstt. Year: 2012-13 Daljit Harnam Kour, Vs. Ito, Ward 45(5), A-55, Ground Floor, 1810, E-2 Block, Ganesh Nagar, Civic Centre, New Delhi-18 New Delhi (Pan: Arwpk6881C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Sangeet Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sangeet Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 144

interest of natural justice, I remit back the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. I hold and direct accordingly in view of the aforesaid discussions. Assessee is also directed to fully cooperate with

Markethill Corporate Advisory Services Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-16(2), Delhi

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

ITA 3988/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON'BLE (Vice President)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sangeet Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 272A(1)(d)

passed u/.s 250/143(3) of the Income Tax is illegal, void, contrary to the law and passed without affording the proper / reasonable opportunity of being heard resulting the entire additions were suo motto which is liable to be quashed full arguments shall be advanced at the time of the hearing ... facts by passing the assessment order on 30.05.2025 in a hurried manner despite having time for affording the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard. They unable to make compliance of same on last moment of time as it were not come to their knowledge on regular basis. Hence

Khaitan and Partners, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-61(1), Delhi

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

ITA 1610/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275

made under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. If you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity of being heard in person or through authorised representative you may show cause in writing on or before the said date which will be considered before

Kuldeep Kumar, Hisar, Haryana vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 4172/DEL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2013-14 Kuldeep Kumar Dhani Near National Faceless Lakhpal Village Adampur Vs Appeal Centre , Delhi Tehsil Mandi Distt Hisar 125052 Pan No. Asopk2776R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Shubham Gupta, Advocate Respondent By Shri Om Parkash Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 19/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/08/2025 Order Per Sudhir Kumar, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (In Short “Nfac”) Delhi Vide Order Dated 27-09-2023 Pertaining To A.Y. 2013-14 & Arises Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 26-03-2022 U/S 143(3) R.W.S144 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred In making addition under section 68 of the Act without providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in making addition

Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd Unn, Shamli vs. ITO NFAC, NFAC Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 4056/DEL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri J.N. Shukla, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

assessee to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and admit the appeal for fresh adjudication after allowing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, The assessee is directed to produce all necessary documents as required by the ld. CIT(A). 7. As a result ... fresh adjudication. The ld. CIT(A) is directed to condone the delay and decide the issues afresh after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to produce all necessary documents and evidences as required by the ld. CIT(A). 11. As a result

Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd Unn, Unn, Shamli vs. AO NFAC Delhi, NFAC New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 4035/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri J.N. Shukla, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

assessee to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and admit the appeal for fresh adjudication after allowing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, The assessee is directed to produce all necessary documents as required by the ld. CIT(A). 7. As a result ... fresh adjudication. The ld. CIT(A) is directed to condone the delay and decide the issues afresh after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to produce all necessary documents and evidences as required by the ld. CIT(A). 11. As a result

Santosh Sharma, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Jodhpur

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

ITA 859/JODH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Moved A Condonation Petition Explaining That The Delay Was Caused Due To Non-Receipt Of Communication From The Earlier Representative, Who Neither Apprised The Assessee Of The Appellate Outcome Nor Advised Timely Remedial Action. It Has Been Further Submitted That Upon Obtaining Knowledge Of The Order, The Assessee Promptly Engaged New Counsel & Has Been Diligently Pursuing The Matter. A Prayer Was Made To Condone The Delay In The Interest Of Justice.

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anuradha, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

considered view that the matter deserves to be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6.1 Accordingly, the delay of 217 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned. The impugned order

Suman Devi, Jamshedpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward3(1) Jamshedpur, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 185/RAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi18 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaysuman Devi, I.T.O., H. No. 34, Gurudwara Road, Road No. Ward-3(1), Vs. 1, Jamco, Azad Basti, Telco, Jamshedpur. Jamshedpur-831004. Pan No. Avrpd 3617 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 56(2)(x)Section 69

Officer for readjudication. The Assessing Officer shall issue fresh notices to the assessee and readjudicate the issue afresh after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. 6. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order announced in open court on 18th August

Mantosh Kumar, Bokaro Steel City vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1), I T, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 80/RAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi18 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: S/ S/Hri George Mathan & Ratnesh Nandan Sahayratnesh Nandan Sahayratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year : 2018-19 Mantosh Kumar, C/O Sri Mantosh Kumar, C/O Sri Vs. Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Surendra Singh, Flat No.Va Surendra Singh, Flat No.Va- Income Income Tax, Tax, Circle Circle-2(1), 12, 12, Block Block A.Vaikshnavi A.Vaikshnavi Kolakata Apartment, Apartment, Chira Chira Chas, Chas, Bokaro, Jharkhand Bokaro, Jharkhand Pan/Gir No. .Bwtpm 1034 N (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv & Dr Bhanu Giri Assessee By Devesh Poddar, Adv & Dr Bhanu Giri Revenue By Revenue By : Shri Khub Chand Pandya, Ld Sr Dr , Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/08/202 2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/08/2 2025 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Assessment Order Passed U/S.147 Of The Act R.W.S. 144C Of The Act Dated 31.1.2024. Of The Act R.W.S. 144C Of The Act Dated 31.1.2024. Of The Act R.W.S. 144C Of The Act Dated 31.1.2024. 2. Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv & Dr Bhanu Giri Devesh Poddar, Adv & Dr Bhanu Giri, Ld Ars Appeared For The Appeared For The Assessee. Shri Assessee. Shri Khub Chand Pandya, Ld Sr Dr Represented On Behalf Of The Represented On Behalf Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv and Dr Bhanu GiriFor Respondent: Shri Khub Chand Pandya, ld Sr DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148A

which governs the issue in hand, which is quoted herein below:- Section 148A(b) of the I.T. Act. "148A (b) provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, by serving upon him a notice to show cause within such time, as may be specified in the notice, being

Rajendra Lal, Hazaribagh vs. ACIT Circle-2, Hazarigabh

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

ITA 105/RAN/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi18 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayrajendra Lal. A.C.I.T., Prop.-Allankar Jewellers, Malviya Marg, Circle-2, Vs. Hazaribag-825301 (Jharkhand) Hazaribag. Pan No. Aaqpl 6547 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

readjudication after considering the submissions of the assessee alongwith the enclosures thereto and also after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. 6. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order announced in open court on 18th August, 2025. (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY

Tariq Ahmad Mir S/O Mohad Abdulla Mir Tariq General Store Gund Ramban Banihal, Banihal Ramban vs. Income Tax Officer Ward Udhampur 103 Ward No 10 Dhar Road Udhampur, Udhampur

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

ITA 92/ASR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 92/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

Assessing Officer are both against the facts of this case and are untenable under the law. 2. That no reasonable and proper opportunity of being heard was allowed by the Assessing Officer before passing the said order. As such the assessment order passed is bad in the eyes ... necessary supporting documents in support of his contention and to fully cooperate in appellate proceedings. 9. The assessee will be allowed reasonable opportunity of being heard. 10. We have not expressed any opinion on merits. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order

Zaffer Ullah Shah S/O Sh Abdul Gani Shah Khokhar Complex Distt Police Line Street Doda 182201, Distt Doda vs. Income Tax Office Ward 2(4) Udhampur 103-Ward 10 Dhar Road Udhampur, Udhampur

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

ITA 87/ASR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 87/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 249Section 249(4)Section 250Section 69A

Assessing Officer are both against the facts of this case and are untenable under the law. 2. That no reasonable and proper opportunity of being heard was allowed by the Assessing Officer before passing the said order. As such the assessment order passed is bad in the eyes ... justified in invoking the provisions of section 249(4) for the first time and accordingly thereby rejecting the appeal without giving any reasonable opportunity of being heard. The worthy CIT(A) should have allowed an opportunity of being heard in view of the provisions of section 249(4). The order

Abdul Hamid Nachar, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Rajbagh Srinagar

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for

ITA 166/ASR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Tasir Ul Islam & Sh. Zubair Khan, Advs
Section 147Section 249Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

first appellate authority was legally not justified in dismissing the appeal without admitting the same for hearing and without allowing any opportunity of being heard or to explain the reasons for non-payment of advance tax. He prayed for opportunity of hearing on merits of the case ... first appellate authority we have not adjudicated on the remaining grounds on merits. 18. The assessee will be allowed proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard. 13 I.T.A. Nos. 158, 161 and 166/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2019-20 19. In the result, all the three appeals filed