“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

Sagar Mining and Metals Industries Private Limited, Keonjhar vs. Income Tax Officer, Keonjhar Ward, Keonjhar

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

ITA 398/CTK/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack13 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.398/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015) Sagar Mining & Metal Vs Ito, Ward Keonjhar Industries Private Limited, Near St. Teresa School, Sbi Road Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Pan No. : Aalcs 1743 E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, 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 P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor 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 3 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

Milan Kumar Sahoo, Keonjhar vs. Income Tax Officer, Keonjhar

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

ITA 397/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack13 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.397/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Milan Kumar Sahoo, Vs Ito Keonjhar Naranpur, Keonjhar, Odisha Pan No. :Bplps 3631 G (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 13.11.2024 Passed In Appeal No.Cit(A), Cuttack/10502/2019-20 For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 160 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 160 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. Shri Vijay Singh, 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. 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

S B Construction, Angul vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 396/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack13 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.396/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) S B Construction Vs Dcit, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar Karadei, Bijigol, Talcher,Angul 759117 Pan No. : Aawfs 7521 A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, 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 P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor 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/- 3 (Rupees Five Thousand only) shall be payable by the assessee to the Income Tax Bar Association

Kali Prasanna Parida, Paradeep vs. ITO, Ward, Paradeep

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

ITA 395/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack13 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.395/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Kali Prasanna Parida Vs Ito, Paradeep Ward, Paradeep Baingol Tentukipada, Paradeep, Jagatsinghhpur, 754136 Pan No. : Caapp 4198 L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Biswaraj Raul, 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 Biswaraj Raul, AdvocateFor 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/- 3 (Rupees Five Thousand only) shall be payable by the assessee to the Income Tax Bar Association

Kumari Hemangi Somchand Sumaria Charitable Trust, Vapi vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 286/SRT/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Aug 2025

Bench: Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethkumari Hemangi Somchand Vs. The Cit(Exemption), Sumaria Charitable Trust, Ahmedabad Plot No.167/168, Sector 1, Saurabh Society, Gidc Vapi, Gujarat – 3963195 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaatk9084E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Hardik Vora, Ar Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 07/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/08/2025

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

assessee to file relevant documents / evidences and to plead its case before the CIT(E). It is settled law that sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Therefore, without delving much into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order

Lok Mangal Sarvangi Trust, Bharuch vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 1324/SRT/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Aug 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)(iii)

case effectively before the CIT(E). It is settled law that principles of natural justice requires that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest its case. Therefore, without delving much into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, we set aside ... also set aside and restored to the file of CIT(E) for de novo order after granting reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. For statistical purposes, the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed. 16. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Lok Mangal Sarvangi Trust, Bharuch vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1323/SRT/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Aug 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)(iii)

case effectively before the CIT(E). It is settled law that principles of natural justice requires that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest its case. Therefore, without the order of CIT(E) and remit the matter back to the file of CIT(E) with ... also set aside and restored to the file of CIT(E) for de novo order after granting reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. For statistical purposes, the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed. 16. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Sandeep Natani, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Jaipur

Appeal is disposed of, for statistical purposes, and while setting aside the impugned order passed by

ITA 884/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Learned Cit(A), While Challenging Assessment Order Dated 21.03.2022, Passed By The Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, Relating To The Assessment Year 2015-16. Said Appeal Came To Be Dismissed By Learned Cit(A), Nfac, On 19.03.2025, Thereby Sustaining The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 148Section 69A

comply with the notices issued by the office of Learned CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer, and that in order to provide reasonable opportunity of being heard, the matter may be remanded to the Assessing Officer. 5. The matter is sought to be remanded to the Assessing Officer ... said that the assessee was diligently perusing the matter. 9. As noticed above, Ld. AR for the assessee-appellant has requested for an opportunity of being heard so that he is able to comply with all the directions issued by the Assessing Officer, for the purpose of effective adjudication

Green Minded Fooundation, Bawdi Bera vs. ITO Ward 4(1), Jaipur

The appeal is disposed of, for

ITA 579/JPR/2025[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Aug 2025AY 2024-2025

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal, By Filing An Appeal On 12.04.2025.

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR

Section 12A(1)(ac)

restored to the files of Learned CIT(E) for decision afresh, in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of being heard to the applicant. However, taking into consideration, non compliance on the part of the applicant of the three notices, the applicant-appellant is burdened with costs of Rs.1

Lakhubhai Nathubhai Sisodiya, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward 3(2)(3), Ahmedabad, Current ITO Ward 3(1)(2)

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

ITA 716/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri P D Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

view of the covid pandemic. It was further argued that the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal without granting the assessee an effective opportunity of being heard, thereby depriving him of the chance to bring all facts and evidence on record. On merits, the Counsel for the assessee submitted ... file for fresh adjudication of the appeal on merits after condoning the delay. The CIT(Appeals) shall grant the assessee an opportunity of being heard and bring all available material on record and thereafter pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. 8. In the result, the appeal

Arifkhan Munirkhan Pathan, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1142/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

appeal u/s. 250 of the Act, followed by a number of refixation of notices by this office. The appellant despite getting several opportunities of being heard did not bother to pursue the appeal. There is nothing on record to suggest that the appellant ever asked for adjournment and no pleadings ... failed to make out any credible or cogent ground for not to decide the appeal ex-parte despite getting adequate and sufficient opportunities of being heard. 6.3 In view of the discussion made above, I do not find any reasons to interfere with the findings given

Mohammed Salim Noorbhai Shaikh, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2(4), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1141/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

Rajamani Nallathal, Karur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Karur

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

ITA 535/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.535/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2021-22

For Appellant: Mr.Y.Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Mr.P.Krishna Kumar, JCIT

inappropriate and incorrect understanding of the facts of the case. It was also argued that the Ld.AO has not provided him with adequate opportunity of being heard and had given very little time to submit its details and submissions. The Ld.CIT(A) also merely relied upon the argument ... atleast an iota of truth in the pleadings of the assessee of not being given sufficient time to file details . Grant of sufficient opportunity of being heard is sina qua non for every judicial proceedings. General clauses Act provides for atleast seven days of opportunity to a litigant to comply

Samachar Manyata Association for Research & Training, Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 387/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Aug 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.386/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: - आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.387/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: - Samachar Manyata Association For The Commissioner Of Income Tax Research & Training, (Exemptions), Old No.19, New No.72, Marshall Road, Chennai. Egmore, Chennai-600 008. [Pan: Abfcs2266P] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri P.M.Kathir, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, Cit

For Appellant: Shri P.M.Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 12ASection 80G

principles of natural justice in this case in as much as the Ld.CIT(E ) has drawn unilateral conclusion without affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard. It was accordingly requested that matter may be considered for remission back to the Ld.CIT(E) for readjudication after affording the assessee ... opportunity of being heard. 4.0 Per contra, the Ld.DR relied upon the order of Ld.CIT(E ). 5.0 We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material available on records. We find considerable force in the averments of the appellant assessee. We have also noted a case of apparent

Samachar Manyata Association for Research & Training, Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 386/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Aug 2025

For Appellant: Shri P.M.Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 12ASection 80G

Tirupur South Rotary Charitable Trust, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Exemptions, Coimbatore

In the result, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1553/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1553/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2022-23 Tirupur South Rotary Charitable Trust, Assistant Commissioner Of South Rotary Hall, Income Tax (Exemptions), Opp Nataraja Theatre, Tirupur, Coimbatore. Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641 604. [Pan: Aaett0308E] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri S.Bhupendran, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.Krishna Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri S.Bhupendran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.Krishna Kumar, JCIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

provided for in section 251(1)(a) of the Act without prescribing to the mandatory prescription under section 251(2) of giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 3.0 Per contra, the Ld. DR relied upon the order of lower authorities. 4.0 We have heard the rival submissions ... enhancement u/s 251(1)(a). In that situation, the Ld.First Appellate Authority is mandated to confirm to prescription u/s 252 of giving an opportunity of being heard before drawing any adverse conclusions. The same has not been done in this case and therefore assessee’s rights of natural justice have

Bison Agro Farms Private Limited, Coimbatore vs. Income Tax Officer Corp Ward 3, Cbe, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1496/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1496/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Bison Agro Farms Private Limited, Income Tax Officer, No.46, Att Colony Coimbatore South, Ward-3, Cbe Mpl.Central Bus Stand S.O, Coimbatore. Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641 018. [Pan: Aaecb8287H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. Ganesan, C.A, प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr. Ganesan, C.AFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)

interest of justice, we remit the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for readjudication after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and in accordance with law. The assessee shall make necessary compliances and any deviation would be adversely viewed. Consequently, the decision to remit

Screen Scene Media Entertainment Private Limited, Chennai vs. TDS Ward 3 (2), Chennai

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

ITA 1469/CHNY/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1447/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2019-20 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1466/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2020-21 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1467/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2021-22 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1468/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2022-23 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1469/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2023-24

For Appellant: Mr.V.R.Vasantha Narayanan, FCAFor Respondent: Mr.P.Krishna Kumar, JCIT

Section 194CSection 194JSection 201

outset, Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that it has not been accorded due opportunity of being heard by the Ld.CIT(A) before dismissing its appeal. The Ld.Counsel submitted that the Ld.AO Page - 2 - of 6 ITA No.1447, 1466, 1467, 1468 & 1469 /Chny/2025 has treated the assessee as an assessee ... passing a speaking order. To the extent the order of lower authorities on this issue stands set aside. The Ld. AO shall give opportunities of being heard to the assesse and it shall be bounden upon the assesse to comply with the notices issued

Screen Scene Media Entertainment Private Limited, Chennai vs. TDS Ward 3 (2), Chennai

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

ITA 1468/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

For Appellant: Mr.V.R.Vasantha Narayanan, FCAFor Respondent: Mr.P.Krishna Kumar, JCIT

Section 194CSection 194JSection 201

Screen Scene Media Entertainment Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. TDS Ward 3 (2), Chennai

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

ITA 1467/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Mr.V.R.Vasantha Narayanan, FCAFor Respondent: Mr.P.Krishna Kumar, JCIT

Section 194CSection 194JSection 201