← 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

Anilbhai Desai, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(1), Surat

ITA 1059/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 1059/Srt/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Anilbhai Desai Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 87, Brahman Faliya, Udhna Kharwasa Road, Dindoli, Surat – 394210 2(3)(1), Surat स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Gcbpd0303J (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 1060/Srt/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Dakshaben Ajitbhai Desai Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 87, Brahman Faliyu, 2(3)(1), Surat Dindoli, Choryasi. Surat – 394 210 स्थायी लेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ayspd 0711F (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 1061/Srt/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Binalben Pinkeshbhai Naik Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, 132/2 Zaveri Faliya, Kachhori Gandevi Navsari Navsari - 396445 स्थायी लेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aftpn 6207 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Respondent By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, Ca : Shri Ajay Uke, Ld. Sr. Dr : 05/08/2025 : 18/08/2025

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT

Maheshwari Sabha Tricity, Panchkula vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 249/CHANDI/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Aug 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 249/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2025-26 Maheshwari Sabha Tricity Commissioner Of Plot No 102, Industrial बनाम Income Tax Area, Phase 2, ((Exemptions), Vs. Panchkula-134113. Chandigarh-160017. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aajam4028L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Manoj Kumar, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit.Dr (Virtual Mode) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05-08-2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025 आदेश/Order Per Laliet Kumar, Jm: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12-12-2024 Of Ld. Cit (Exemptions), Chandigarh.

For Appellant: Shri. Manoj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT.DR
Section 249Section 80G(5)

registration u/s 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') by passing an ex-parte order, without providing any opportunity of being heard. It has further been submitted that assessee had not intentionally omitted the compliance of hearing notices, however, the assessee could not make

Punjab Defence and Security Relief Fund, Chandigarh vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 238/CHANDI/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Aug 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 238/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2024-25 Punjab Defence & Security The Cit बनाम Relief Fund, (Exemptions), Room No. 22, 2Nd Floor, Chandigarh Vs. Cm Office, Confidential Branch, Punjab Civil Secretariate, Chandigarh 160001 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaalp2265N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Virtual Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusam Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2025 आदेश/Order Per Laliet Kumar, Jm : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.12.2024 Passed By The Ld. Cit(Exemptions), Chandigarh For The Assessment Year 2024-25. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:

For Appellant: Sh. Manoj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusam Bansal, CIT DR
Section 10

quashed 2. The Id. CIT(Exemption) is wrong in rejecting the application for registration u/s 10(23C) (iii) without providing any opportunity of being heard, since show cause notice was not issued to the assessee, which is against the principle of natural justice and so, order passed is liable ... rejected the application of the Assessee u/s 10(23C) (iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') without providing any opportunity of being heard. It has further been submitted that no show cause notice was issued to the Assessee 238-Chd-2025 Punjab Defence and Security Relief

Shri Ganesh Sahakari Sakhar Kharkhana Limited, Ahmednagar vs. DCIT Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar

ITA 119/PUN/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.119/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Ganesh Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., A/P. Ranjangaon Khurd, Tal.-Rahata, Dist.-Ahmednagar – 413719 Vs. Dcit, Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar Pan: Aaeas0636H अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2510, 2511 & 2512/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Shri Ganesh Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., A/P. Ranjangaon Khurd, Tal.-Rahata, Dist.-Ahmednagar – 413719 Vs. Dcit, Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar Pan : Aaeas0636H अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Hanmant Dattatry Dhavale Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 15-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Above Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 20.12.2024 & 25.10.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)"] Pertaining To Assessment Years ("Ays”) 2009-10 & 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. Ita No. 2510/Pun/2024 For Ay 2010-11 Is Taken Up As A Lead Case.

For Appellant: Shri Hanmant Dattatry DhavaleFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 155(19)Section 254Section 40A(2)

concessional price instead of market price and concessional price and decide the issue afresh and in accordance with law after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result ... afresh in consideration of the submissions already made by the assessee and further submission/ evidence as may be required/called upon, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Ld. DR had no objection to the above request of the assessee. In this view of the matter

Shri Ganesh Ssk Ltd, Ahmednagar vs. D.C.I.T, Ahmednagar, Circle-Ahmednagar

ITA 2512/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Hanmant Dattatry DhavaleFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 155(19)Section 254Section 40A(2)

concessional price instead of market price and concessional price and decide the issue afresh and in accordance with law after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result ... afresh in consideration of the submissions already made by the assessee and further submission/ evidence as may be required/called upon, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Ld. DR had no objection to the above request of the assessee. In this view of the matter

Shri Ganesh Ssk Ltd, Ahmednagar vs. D.C.I.T, Ahmednagar, Circle-Ahmednagar

ITA 2511/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 155(19)Section 254Section 40A(2)

concessional price instead of market price and concessional price and decide the issue afresh and in accordance with law after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result ... afresh in consideration of the submissions already made by the assessee and further submission/ evidence as may be required/called upon, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Ld. DR had no objection to the above request of the assessee. In this view of the matter

Shri Ganesh Ssk Ltd, Ahmednagar vs. D.C.I.T, Ahmednagar, Circle-Ahmednagar

ITA 2510/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.119/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Ganesh Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., A/P. Ranjangaon Khurd, Tal.-Rahata, Dist.-Ahmednagar – 413719 Vs. Dcit, Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar Pan: Aaeas0636H अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2510, 2511 & 2512/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Shri Ganesh Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., A/P. Ranjangaon Khurd, Tal.-Rahata, Dist.-Ahmednagar – 413719 Vs. Dcit, Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar Pan : Aaeas0636H अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Hanmant Dattatry Dhavale Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 15-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Above Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 20.12.2024 & 25.10.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)"] Pertaining To Assessment Years ("Ays”) 2009-10 & 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. Ita No. 2510/Pun/2024 For Ay 2010-11 Is Taken Up As A Lead Case. 2

For Appellant: Shri Hanmant Dattatry DhavaleFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 155(19)Section 254Section 40A(2)

concessional price instead of market price and concessional price and decide the issue afresh and in accordance with law after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result ... afresh in consideration of the submissions already made by the assessee and further submission/ evidence as may be required/called upon, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Ld. DR had no objection to the above request of the assessee. In this view of the matter

Southopen Infranirman Consultants Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 9(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1268/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1268/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Southopen Infranirman Consultants Pvt. Ltd.……………….……....Appellant 228A, Chittaranjan Avenue, W.B – 700006. [Pan: Aarcs2287B] Vs. Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata……………....…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Smt. Swati Baid, Fca Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Susanta Saha, Acit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 13, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 18, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 01.04.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Has Filed Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.60440/-. On Information Received That The Assessee Company Had Received Accommodation Entry Of Rs.28,00,000/- Routed Through The Bank Account Of M/S Strong Well Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. During The F.Y 2017-18. Later On, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 By Issuing Notice U/S 148 As To Believe By The Assessing Officer That The Said Income Of The Had Escaped Assessment. Thereafter, Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued To The Assessee To Furnish Necessary Details To Prove The Source The Deposit In The Bank Amount.

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

whole issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to re- examine the issue on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to comply with the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) as and when asked

Santanu Roy, ITO, Ward 10(2), Kolkata vs. Ems Polyset Private Limited, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2194/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. Nos.2193&2194/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2112-13 Ito, Ward-10(2), Kolkata.…………………….…………….……....Appellant Vs. Ems Polyset Pvt. Ltd………………………………………….…..... Respondent Gobinda Niwas, Jyangra, Baguihati, Kolkata - 700059. [Pan: Aaace5551F] Appearances By: Shri Susanta Saha, Acit- Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subrato Rai, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 13, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 18, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against Two Separate Orders Both Dated 06.08.2024 Passed By The Cit(Appeals) Addl/Jcit(A), Madurai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) For Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. First, We Take Up Ita No.2193/Kol/2024 For Narration Of Facts. 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Are Delays Of 27 Days In Filing Both The Present Appeals. The Revenue Filed Applications For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Applications, We Find Reasonable Cause. We

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 250

remand the whole issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to re-examine the issue afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to comply with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer without any fail. Hence

ITO, Ward 10(2), Kolkata vs. Ems Polyset Private Limited, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2193/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. Nos.2193&2194/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2112-13 Ito, Ward-10(2), Kolkata.…………………….…………….……....Appellant Vs. Ems Polyset Pvt. Ltd………………………………………….…..... Respondent Gobinda Niwas, Jyangra, Baguihati, Kolkata - 700059. [Pan: Aaace5551F] Appearances By: Shri Susanta Saha, Acit- Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subrato Rai, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 13, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 18, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against Two Separate Orders Both Dated 06.08.2024 Passed By The Cit(Appeals) Addl/Jcit(A), Madurai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) For Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. First, We Take Up Ita No.2193/Kol/2024 For Narration Of Facts. 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Are Delays Of 27 Days In Filing Both The Present Appeals. The Revenue Filed Applications For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Applications, We Find Reasonable Cause. We

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 250

remand the whole issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to re-examine the issue afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to comply with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer without any fail. Hence

T vs. Charities, Maduraivs.ITO, Exemptions Ward, Madurai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 413/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.413/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: - V. Tvs Charities, The Ito, 7-B, Tvs Building West Veli Street, Exemptions Ward, Madurai-625 001. Madurai.

Section 2(15)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

circumstances of the case and the principles of equity and natural justice. 2. The CIT ought to have given the appellant sufficient opportunity of being heard. The CIT ought to have given an opportunity to the appellant to demonstrate why the case of the appellant falls within the definition

M/S. Tafe Motors Amd Tractors Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1513/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1511, 1512 & 1513/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2017-18 & 2018-19 V. M/S.Tafe Motors & Tractors Ltd., The Dcit, New No.77, Old No.35, Corporate Cirlce-3(1), Pottipati Plaza, Chennai. Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aacct 2459 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35

under: 13. Section 254 of the Act says that the Appellate Tribunal may, after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit. 14. Reference may be made to National Thermal Power

M/S. Tafe Motors Amd Tractors Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1512/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1511, 1512 & 1513/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2017-18 & 2018-19 V. M/S.Tafe Motors & Tractors Ltd., The Dcit, New No.77, Old No.35, Corporate Cirlce-3(1), Pottipati Plaza, Chennai. Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aacct 2459 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35

under: 13. Section 254 of the Act says that the Appellate Tribunal may, after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit. 14. Reference may be made to National Thermal Power

M/S. Tafe Motors Amd Tractors Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1511/CHNY/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1511, 1512 & 1513/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2017-18 & 2018-19 V. M/S.Tafe Motors & Tractors Ltd., The Dcit, New No.77, Old No.35, Corporate Cirlce-3(1), Pottipati Plaza, Chennai. Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aacct 2459 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35

under: 13. Section 254 of the Act says that the Appellate Tribunal may, after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit. 14. Reference may be made to National Thermal Power

India Japan Lighting Private Limited, Chennai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 4, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1427/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1427/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 V. M/S. India Japan Lighting Pvt. Ltd., The Pcit-4, No.1, Tiruvallur High Road, Chennai. Puduchatram B.O., Thirumazhisai, Tiruvallur-600 124. [Pan: Aaaci 2673 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263

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 inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify

Yasmeen Shaikh, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(5), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1264/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessmentyear:2015-16 Mrs. Yasmeen Shaikh, Income Tax Officer, 3093, Sobha Carnation, Ward-5(3)(5), Bellandur Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru. Bellandur, Vs. Bengaluru-560103. Pan No : Aovps3088K Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Sunain Bhatia, Advocate Respondent By : Sri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate-Standing Counsel For Revenue Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote: This Is An Appeal Filed By Mrs. Yasmeen Shaikh 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 2015-16 On 18/03/2025 Emanating From Assessment Order Dated 25/01/2023 Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below, Insofar As They Are Against The Appellant, Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Ld.Cit(A)/Nfac Erred In Disposing Off The Appeal Holding That The Appellant Has Not Complied

For Appellant: Ms. Sunain Bhatia, Advocate
Section 147Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 69

Accordingly, Ground No.2 of the assessee is ITANo.1264/Bang/2025 Mrs. Yasmeen Shaikh vs. ITO Page 5 of 5 allowed. Ld. CIT(A) shall provide opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 10. We do not intend to adjudicate the Grounds No. 1, 3 and 4 raised by the assessee which

Mahasukhrai Pragjibhai Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer- 19(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2637/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Malav Sheth, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 44A

deem it appropriate to remand the instant case to the file of the AO for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee and by considering the documents to be filed by the Assessee as the Assessee is ordered to file

Ratnakar Manikrao Gutte, Gangakhed vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal

ITA 6106/MUM/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant& Shri Pawan Singhit(Ss)A No. 60/Mum/2025 (Ay: 2013-14) (Hybridhearing)

Section 254(1)Section 69B

SOTTA. 7) Without prejudice to above grounds, the Id. AO erred in passing the assessment order in hurry on 29/12/2018 without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard, as the assessment proceedings were abated till 12/12/2018 due to pending application before Settlement Commission. Hence, it is prayed that assessment order

Sh. Anshul Gupta, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward-1(1), Faridabad

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

ITA 701/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2014-15 Anshul Gupta 1627 Sector - I.T.O Ward1(1) Faridabad 28 Faridabad 121002 Vs Haryana Pan No. Aiept5090P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Shaantanu Jain, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Dayainder Singh Sidhu Cit (Dr ) Date Of Hearing: 18/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18/08/2025

Section 147

erred in law and on facts on assessing amount of Rs.3,00,30,250/- as income of the assessee without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard and without observing the principles of natural justice. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, National Faceless Appeal Centre ... erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal of assessee and pass the order without merits without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard. 4. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing

Sharad Chand Karnwal, Bijnor vs. ITO Ward-3(1), Najibabad

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

ITA 3987/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Sh. Aditya Raj Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sangeet Bansal, Sr. DR

dispute to the file of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC with the directions to decide the issues on merits afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, by passing a speaking order, in accordance with law, for which ld. DR has no objection. I hold and direct