← 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

The Shuklatirth Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd., Bharuch vs. The ITO (Exemption) Ward, Vadodara

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

ITA 807/AHD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Ms Urvashi Shodhan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234ASection 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 254Section 271Section 69

submitted that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) was an ex-parte order, which was passed without affording a proper opportunity of being heard. The Ld. AR submitted that all appellate notices were sent to an incorrect email address not belonging to the assessee. The Ld. AR also ... matter needs to be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The assessee shall be given a proper opportunity of being heard and to furnish all relevant documents including those substantiating its claim under section 80P of the Act. 10. In the result, both

The Shuklatirth Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd., Bharuch vs. The ITO (Exemption) Ward, Vadodara

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

ITA 806/AHD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Ms Urvashi Shodhan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234ASection 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 254Section 271Section 69

submitted that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) was an ex-parte order, which was passed without affording a proper opportunity of being heard. The Ld. AR submitted that all appellate notices were sent to an incorrect email address not belonging to the assessee. The Ld. AR also ... matter needs to be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The assessee shall be given a proper opportunity of being heard and to furnish all relevant documents including those substantiating its claim under section 80P of the Act. 10. In the result, both

Vijaysingh Nanusingh Rathore, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1110/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2011-12 Vijaysingh Manusingh Rathore The Ito, Ward-2(1)(1) 130, Kalhar Exotica Vs. Ahmedabad. Science City Road Thaltej, Ahmedabad Gujarat – 380 059. Pan : Adkpr 5315 C (Applicant) (Responent)

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, AR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 68Section 69C

case, we find that the impugned order suffers from violation of these principles, as the assessee was not provided 6 with an effective opportunity to be heard and certain grounds remained undecided. The grounds relating to the validity of the reopening and the addition on account of the alleged penny ... restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication on all grounds of appeal, in accordance with law, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. This restoration is, however, subject to the assessee depositing a sum of Rs.5,000/- as cost with the Income Tax Department within

Rajendra Shakharam Badgujar, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1087/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21 Mr.Rajendra Shakharam Badgujar The Ito, Ward-5(3)(2) 42, Jay Raghunath Society Vs. Vejalpur Priya Cinema Road Ahmedabad. Krushnanagar Saijpur Ahmedabad 382 346. Pan : Afupb 1181 J (Applicant) (Responent)

For Appellant: Shri Ritesh Shah, AR
Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(x)Section 69

direction to admit the appeal, consider the additional evidences in accordance with Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, grant reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, and decide the appeal afresh on merits by a speaking order. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical

Hareshkumar Hashmukhlal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1)(Old Ward-5(2)(4)), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1288/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalhareshkumar Hashmukhlal Shah, Income Tax Officer, Vs. C/O. Ms Chhajed & Co. Ca, Ward-5(3)(1), “Kamal Shanti” (Old Ward-5(2)(4)) Nr. Sardar Patel Statue, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380014. [Pan :Altps3369 Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Smt. Preyashi Tated, Ar Respondent By: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.08.2025

For Appellant: Smt. Preyashi Tated, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 69Section 69A

Ld.CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of Assessing officer for conducting assessment de-novo, after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee.. The assessee shall submit all the relevant bank statement/submission/document before the Assessing Officer and comply with the notices issued

Jayvanti Janardan Bhanuskar, Raigad vs. ACIT, Circle-Panvel, Panvel

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

ITA 890/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Aug 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

matter back to his file for adjudication afresh and pass speaking order on merits as per fact and law after allowing one final opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to provide the requisite support in terms of submitting the relevant documents/ evidence

Kailash Shikshan Mandal, Pune vs. CIT ( Exemption) Pune, Pune

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

ITA 780/PUN/2025[2025-2026]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Aug 2025AY 2025-2026

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.780/Pun/2025 Kailash Shikshan Mandal, Cit (Exemption), Pune Kailash Shikshan Mandal Rahu, Walki B.O., Bhawadi, Vs. Dist. Pune-412207 Pan : Aaetk1235F अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Abhay A Avachat Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 10-07-2025 Date Of 12-08-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.01.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune [“Cit(E)”] Whereby He Rejected The Application Of The Assessee Filed Before Him On 20.09.2024 In Form No. 10Ab Under Sub-Clause (Ii) Of Clause (Ac) Of Sub- Section(1) Of Section 12A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Abhay A AvachatFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

assessee and thus suffers from infirmity. 4. The learned CIT (Exemption), Pune has erred in rejecting assessee's application without affording adequate opportunity of being heard and without considering assessee's submission. 5. The CIT erred in rejecting application of renewal without going into merits of the case and despite ... assessee was having valid and regular approval u/s 12AB. 2 6. The Assessee prays before your honour to afford and allow it an opportunity of being heard on merits of the case and to allow any other relief under income tax law. 7. The assessee craves leave to add, alter

Ganesh Agro Steel Industries, Nashik vs. The ACIT, Circle-1, Nashik

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

ITA 777/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Aug 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Sanket M JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 131Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153C

matter back to his file for adjudication afresh and pass speaking order on merits as per fact and law after allowing one final opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to provide the requisite support in terms of submitting the relevant documents/ evidence

Debdas Ghosh, Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward 24(1), Hooghly

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

ITA 1062/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Aug 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 155(15)Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

received and apparently no amendment had been done by the Ld. AO. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any I.T.A. No.: 1062/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Debdas Ghosh. further submission it wants to make in support of its grounds

Sahyog Vanijya Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-11(4), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1995/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1995/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sahyog Vanijya Pvt. Ltd.………………..……..…………………....Appellant 83, Shivam Apartments, S C Road, Barat Lake Town, Kol, W.B – 700069. [Pan: Aamcs5398C] Vs. Ito, Ward-11(4), Kolkata……………....…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Sima Das Biswas, Jcit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 12, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 12,2025 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 25.05.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012–13. 2. At The Outset, The Registry Informed That There Is A Delay Of 428 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed Application For Condonation Of Such Delay Citing Valid & Proper Reasons. After Considering The Averments Made In The Application, We Condone The Delay In The Appeal. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Has Filed Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Declaring Total Loss Of Rs.591/- . On Information Received From Ito, (Inv.), Unit-1, Kolkata That The

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

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

Sarva Jana Seva Trust, Namakkal vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

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

ITA 980/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.980/Chny/2025

For Respondent: Shri Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration of the application, after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. We also direct the assessee to appear before the Ld. CIT(E) on the date of hearing without fail and submit all the relevant

Nagarajan Perumal (Deceased) Rep.by L/H Lakshmi Prabhu, Salem vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Salem

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

ITA 775/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.775/Chny/2025 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2011-12 Nagarajan Perumal (Deceased), The Dy. Commissioner Of Represented By His Wife & Legal Vs. Income Tax, Heir Lakshmi Prabha, Circle-1(1), 14, Masukadu, Karungalpatti B.O., Salem. Salem – 636 006. [Pan: Abgpp 0067R]

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendran, Advocate
Section 143(3)

direct him to pass a fresh order after bringing the legal heir on record and after affording due opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only. 7. In the result, the appeal filed

Shivakumar Mahadevaiahre, Mysuru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Mysuru

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

ITA 308/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Mr. Shivakumar Mahadevaiahre Ito B-9, 9Th Main Lalith Mahal Nagar Ward 2(3) Mysore, Karnataka 570028 Vs. Mysuru-570010 Karnataka Pan:Aczpm8866F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Sukesh Patil, Ca. Respondent By : Sri Subramanian, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.08.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 20.12.2024 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1071397505(1) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Sri Sukesh Patil, CAFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian, JCIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 154Section 250

Mahadevaiahre, Mysore Page 2 of 6 4. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals uphold the additions made by A.O without giving proper opportunity of being heard the appellant. 5. Appellant reserve the right to add, to alter, to amend and to delete any other grounds at the time ... Ld.CIT(A) did not consider the confirmation and credentials of loans and advances produced before him and passed an order without giving proper opportunity of being heard and prayed that one more opportunity may be granted before the Ld. AO to produce all these confirmations and credentials of the loan

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Tejas Bharatkumar Saglani, Mumbai

In the result, grounds No

ITA 4312/MUM/2025[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ito, Tejas Bharatkumar Saglani, 4Th Floor, Room No. 405, Piramal Shop No. 22/23, Santoshi Mata Chambers, Lal Baug, Parel, Vs. Chs, Below Reliance Super, Mumbai-400012. Lamington Road, Mumbai-400008. Pan No. Azjps 8276 Q Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Rasik Tanna

with law. matter afresh in accordance with law. We make it cl We make it clear that the Assessing Officer shall grant adequate opportunity of being heard to Assessing Officer shall grant adequate opportunity of being heard to Assessing Officer shall grant adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee

Pushpavati Janardhan Rao, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 4 (3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4243/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita Nara, A/RFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. D/R
Section 143(3)Section 144B(1)Section 144B(9)Section 234BSection 271A

I.T.A. No. 4243/Mum/2025 3 with a direction to decide the appeal afresh on merits of the case after affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 12th August

Nathoo Lalji Charity Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Exem. Ward 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3925/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R.Singh, CIT DR
Section 11Section 115BSection 143(3)

circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in passing the exparte order, without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred ... case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in passing the ex-parte order, without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant. N.A 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred

Nathoo Lalji Charity Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Exem. Ward 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3924/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R.Singh, CIT DR
Section 11Section 115BSection 143(3)

circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in passing the exparte order, without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred ... case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in passing the ex-parte order, without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant. N.A 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred

Nathoo Lalji Charity Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Exem. Ward 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3923/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R.Singh, CIT DR
Section 11Section 115BSection 143(3)

circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in passing the exparte order, without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred ... case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in passing the ex-parte order, without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant. N.A 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred

Nathoo Lalji Charity Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Exem. Ward 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3907/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R.Singh, CIT DR
Section 11Section 115BSection 143(3)

circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in passing the exparte order, without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred ... case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in passing the ex-parte order, without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant. N.A 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred

New Laxmi Enterprises, Jogeshwari East, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 41(4)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2789/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 New Laxmi Enterprises The Income Tax Officer, 702, Laxmi Narayan Apartments, Ward 41(4)(3), Mumbai Rane Compound, Natvar Nagar Vs. Road No. 1, Jogeshwari East, Mumbai - 400060 (Pan : Aadfn2479B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Amit Kothari, Ca Revenue : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.08.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1073736005(1), Dated 26.02.2025 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Assessment Officer, Mum-W- (404)(93), U/S. 147/148 Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 21.05.2023 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: " 1) The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Ered In Upholding The Addition Of Rs. 1,58,23,513 Without Appreciating The Fact That The Appellant Is A Builder & The Flats Sold Were Stock In Trade Which Is Chargeable To Tax Under The Head Business Income & Not Capital Gains. 2) The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Ought To Have Considered That Out Of The Addition Of Rs 1,58,23,513, Sale Value Of Flats Of Rs. 1,56,42,514

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. AR
Section 147Section 148Section 43CSection 44ASection 50C

file of Ld. AO, more importantly, when the first appellate order is an ex-parte order. Needless to say, assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission, if so required. Ld. AO is directed to verify the claim and allow the same in accordance with