← 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

Shri. Jayadeva Murugharajendra Paththina Sahakara Sangha Ni Hosadurga, Chitradurga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chitradurga

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

ITA 1193/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep C, Ld. C.AFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Gale, Ld. Standing
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

substantial justice, we are inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee, however, subject to deposit of Rs. 11,000/- in the Revenue Department under “other heads” within 30 days

Chandavara Ramakrishna Shivashankar, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 1190/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Likith, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Gale, Ld. Standing
Section 143(3)Section 250

Rs.11,000/- in the Revenue Department under “other heads” within 15 days of the date of this order and while affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 3. We also deem it appropriate to direct the Assessee to comply with the notices to be issued

Chakka Sanjeeva Raidu, Ballari vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 & Tps, Hosapete

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

ITA 1166/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Balchandran, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Gale, Ld. Standing
Section 250

decision afresh. Thus, the case is remanded to the file of the JAO for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 7. We also deem it appropriate to direct the Assessee to comply with the notices to be issued

Verkey Roymon Kanjirathinkal, Somwarpet vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Madikeri

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

ITA 1164/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Srinivas, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Gale, Ld. Standing
Section 147Section 250

inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 3 Mr. Verkey Roymon Kajirathinkal 5. We also deem it appropriate to direct the Assessee to comply with the notices

High Voit Electicals P Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1, Palghar

In the result, the appeal

ITA 4461/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2013-14 High Volt Electricals P. Ltd., Ito Ward 1, J,46, Midc Tarapur, Boisar, S.O. Mqp8+5Q3, Amba Wadi, Salwad, Boisar-401 506. Vs. Palghar-401 404. Pan No. Aabfh 1723 L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Prateek JainFor Respondent: Mr. Kiran K. Chhatrapati, Sr. DR
Section 142Section 147Section 148

erred in confirming the action of Id. Assessing Officer of passing the assessment order without affording adequate opportunity of being heard and without verification of Receipts from Form 26AS. High Volt Electricals P. Ltd High Volt 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case ... order as it does not comply with basic condition i.e. passing an order as it does not comply with basic condition i.e. opportunity of being heard. The learned officer indulged in opportunity of being heard. The learned officer indulged in opportunity of being heard. The learned officer indulged in speculation

Shailesh Kantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4192/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in - (1) not granting proper, sufficient, reasonable and fair opportunity of being heard to the Appellant while passing the appellate order, (ii) not granting an opportunity of personal hearing: 3. EX-PARTE ORDER

Bkc Properties Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -6, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3304/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nishith Khatri, ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 135Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 37(1)Section 80G

erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests 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

Tata Digital Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3122/MUM/2025[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2025AY 2024-2025

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3122/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2024-25)

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Shri. Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 143(1)Section 155(20)Section 199Section 244ASection 250

credit of Rs.27,88,922/- 2.1 The Ld CIT(A) erred in denying the TDS credit of aforementioned amount without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard through virtual hearing to the Appellant, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and additionally not allowing the point re(2) of the notification

St. Thomas Church, Mumbai vs. ITO Exemption Ward 2(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 296/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 296/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2022-23) St Thomas Church V/S. Income Tax Officer 1, Church Road, बिाम (Exemptions) Ward 2(4), Goregaon (East), Mumbai Mumbai 400063 6Th Floor, Cumballa Hill, Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, Mumbai 400026. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatt4878R Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Ms. Vasanti Patel-Adv राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel-AdvFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, CIT DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 250

huge tax demand of Rs. 72,62,660/- (including interest) after adjusting the tax refund of Rs. 3,36,157/- without giving and opportunity of being heard to the appellant trust and thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The Appellant prays that the additions made to the income ... filing of return as required under the provisions of Section 12A, proceeded to make the impugned adjustment without giving the assessee any opportunity of being heard. Aggrieved with the action of the CPC, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) however dismissed assessee’s appeal

Kulbhushan Sahtani, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-51(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4066/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Kulbhushan Sahtani, Vs Ito, 2525/7, Bedanpura, Ward-51(5), Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005. New Delhi Pan-Bknps5543L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri R.K.Goyal, Ar & Ms. Sherry Goyal, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14.08.2025 Order

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ('CIT(A)') and Assessing Officer ('AO') is ex-facie arbitrary, illegal and bad in law, without affording proper opportunity of being heard, also against the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act'), decision of the Hon'ble Courts, CBDT instructions and principle

Sidhbali Corporation, Kotdwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Kotdwar

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

ITA 97/DDN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 97/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2016-17) Sidhbali Corporation Vs. Income Tax Officer Old Sidhbali Marg, Kotdwear, Income Tax Pauri, Uttarakhand Office,Nazibabad Road, Pan: Ackfs7264E Kotdwar, Pauri, Uttarakhand Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. B. R. Garg,Adv Revenue By Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/08/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl/Jcit(A)- Gurugram

Section 154

Assessee preferred the present Appeal. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has provided no opportunity of being heard to the Assessee and in violation of principals of natural justice, dismissed the appeal of the Assessee. 8. Per contra, the Ld. Ld. Departmental ... with a direction to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the Appeal afresh in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 10. In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 13th August

Shri Guru Gobind Singh Charitable Trust, Dehradun vs. ITO(E), Dehradun

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 96/DDN/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Aug 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 12A

remand the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to decide the applications afresh after providing opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. The Appellant is also at liberty to produce all the requisite documents to substantiate the claim of the Appellant. 5. In the result

Shri Guru Gobind Singh Charitable Trust, Dehradun vs. ITO (E), 13-A, Subhash Road, Dehradun

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 95/DDN/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Aug 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 12A

remand the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to decide the applications afresh after providing opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. The Appellant is also at liberty to produce all the requisite documents to substantiate the claim of the Appellant. 5. In the result

Chief Education Officer, Dehradun vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, TDS, Dehradun

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

ITA 85/DDN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 85/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2016-17) Chief Education Officer, Vs. Income Tax Officer-Tds, Mayurvihar, Sahastradhar Ward Tds, Income Tax Road, Dehradun, Officer, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand Pan: Mrtc01830D Appellant Respondent Assessee By None Revenue By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Jcit, Dr Date Of Hearing 07/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/08/2025

Section 201Section 201(1)

Chief education officer decide the Appeal afresh on its merits in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 6. In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 13th August, 2025 (MANISH AGARWAL

Sankar Charan Marandi, Mayurbhanj vs. ACIT, Baleshwar

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

ITA 409/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack13 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.409/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Sankar Charan Marandi Vs Acit, Baleswar Sukhuapada, Kuliana, Mayurbhnaj-757030 Pan No. : Ahxpm 6042 L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.11.2024 Passed In Appeal No.Cit(A),Cuttack/10628/2019-20 For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 172 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported With An Affidavit Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons For Delay, Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Ld. Sr. Dr Also Did Not Raise Any Serious Objection To Condone The Delay. Accordingly, Delay Of 172 Days In Filing The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 3. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Even The Case Was Called For Hearing. Shri Vijay Singh, Ld.Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

restoring the issues in the appeal to the file of ld. AO for adjudicating afresh after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard, subject to a payment of cost of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) shall be payable by the assessee to the Income Tax Bar Association, ITAT

B C Sahu Associates, Berhampur vs. ITO Ward-1, Berhampur

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

ITA 408/CTK/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack13 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.408/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) B.C.Sahu Associates, Vs Ito Ward-1, Berhampur Aurobinda Nagar, 1St Line, Berhampur, Ganjam, Odisha Pan No. : Aaffb 6679 R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Baman Charan Sahu, Assessee राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri Baman Charan Sahu, AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr.DR

submitted by the assessee that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without providing any sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It was the prayer that the matter may be restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue involved ... restoring the issues in the appeal to the file of ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating afresh on merits after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee shall cooperate in the readjudication proceeding before the ld. CIT(A) positively. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee

Odiso Service Cooperative Soceity Ltd, Jajpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jajpur Road

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

ITA 407/CTK/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack13 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.407/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-2020) Odiso Service Cooperative Vs Ito Jajpur Road, Jajpur Society Limited, At:Odiso, Po: Odiso, District : Jajpur Pan No. : Aaaao 2810 K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri N.R.Biswal,Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri N.R.Biswal,CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR

submitted by the ld AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without providing any sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It was the prayer that the matter may be restored to the file of ld. AO to decide the issue involved ... restoring the issues in the appeal to the file of ld. AO for adjudicating afresh after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard, subject to a payment of cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fiftys Thousand only) shall be payable by the assessee to the Income Tax Bar Association, ITAT

Baner Service Cooperative Society Limited, Kalahandi vs. ITO, Bhawanipatna Ward, Bhawanipatna

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

ITA 403/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack13 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.403/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Baner Service Cooperative Vs Ito, Bhawanipatana Ward, Society Limited Bhawanipatana Village-Baner, Jaipatana, Dist : Kalahandi-766018 Pan No. : Aabab 3113 H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Agrawal Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Agrawal CAFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr.DR

assessee that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without providing any sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It was the prayer that the matter may be restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue involved in the appeal afresh ... issues in the appeal to the file of ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating afresh on merits after providing the assessee 3 adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee shall cooperate in the readjudication proceeding before the ld. CIT(A) positively. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly

Lata Ray, Baleswar vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Cuttack

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

ITA 401/CTK/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack13 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.401/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2021-2022) Smt. Lata Ray, Vs Dcit, Circle-1(1), Cuttack At: Madhuban, Po: Ranipatna, Dist : Balasore-756001 Pan No. : Abppr 9809 Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Natabar Panda, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri Natabar Panda, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr.DR

assessee that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without providing any sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It was the prayer that the matter may be restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue involved in the appeal afresh ... restoring the issues in the appeal to the file of ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating afresh on merits after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee shall cooperate in the readjudication proceeding before the ld. CIT(A) positively. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee

Firewatter Distilleries Private Limited, Komatlapeta vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Berhampur Circle

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

ITA 399/CTK/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack13 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.399/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Firewater Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit, Berhampur Circle, Komatlapeta, Rayagada Berhampur Pan No. : Aafcs 5071 D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri N.Trinath Rao, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.08.2024 Passed In Appeal No.Cit(A),Bhubaneswar-1/10070/2018-19 For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 254 Days. Looking To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Delay Of 254 Days In Filing The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld Ar That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Without Providing Any Sufficient Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee. It Was The Prayer That The Matter May Be Restored To The File Of Ld. Ao To Decide The Issue Involved In The Appeal

For Appellant: Shri N.Trinath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

submitted by the ld AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without providing any sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It was the prayer that the matter may be restored to the file of ld. AO to decide the issue involved ... restoring the issues in the appeal to the file of ld. AO for adjudicating afresh after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard, subject to a payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) shall be payable by the assessee to the Income Tax Bar Association, ITAT