← 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

Sabbirahmed Basirahmed Shaikh, Dabhoi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1)(7), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 205/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2021-22 Sabbirahmed Basirahmed Shaikh Ito, Ward-4(1)(7) 5-Jantanagar Society Vs. Vadodara. O/S.Mahudi Bhagol At & Post Dabhoi Pan : Agtps 9809 A (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Bhupendra C. Mehta, Advocate Assessee By : Shri Amit Pratap Singh Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri Amit Pratap Singh Sr.DR
Section 10Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 89(1)

without prior issuance of any intimation or notice under section 143(1)(a). The assessee contended that such adjustment, made without affording an opportunity of being heard, is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. It was pointed out that the appellant had specifically raised this legal issue

National Womens Organisation, Pune vs. Commisioner of Income Tax Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 819/PUN/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2025AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.819/Pun/2025 National Womens Organisation, Cit (Exemption), Pune B 16, Shanti Vihar, Bhavdan, Pune-411021 Vs. Pan : Aaatn4537H अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Shweta Joshi Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 21-07-2025 Date Of 01-08-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.09.2022 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune [“Cit(E)”] Whereby He Rejected The Application Of The Assessee Filed Before Him On 31.03.2022 In Form No. 10Ab Under Clause (Iii) Of Section 12A(1)(Ac) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”).

For Appellant: Smt. Shweta JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 143(3)

satisfactory. 2. The learned CIT, Exemption erred in stating that the Trustee is unable to furnish credible evidence without giving proper opportunity of being heard. 3. The learned CIT, Exemption erred in law and on the facts in not getting sufficient opportunity to the Appellant to submit all the requisite ... aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) to 5 adjudicate the same afresh on merits after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. The Ld. DR had no objection the above request of the Ld. AR. 8. We have heard the Ld. Representatives

Sukhwani Associaties, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

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

ITA 449/PUN/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Vardhaman L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

action of Assistant Director of Income Tax (CPC), Banglore [hereinafter 'AO'] in passing the order u/s.143(1) of the Act without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard, as provided under second proviso to section 143(1) of the Act; hence the order passed

Haragopal Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. CIT (Exemptions), Aayakar Bhavan, Hyderabad

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

ITA 816/HYD/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad01 Aug 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.816/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2025-26) M/S. Haragopal Educational Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Society, (Exemption), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan:Aaath5611C (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Narender Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/07/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 01/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Narender Kumar Naik
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

assessee and decide the issue on merits by passing a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, after affording a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court

Goldman Sachs (India) Securities Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Income-Tax Department, Delhi

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

ITA 6764/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 253(1)Section 92C

loss account and no deduction was claimed, accordingly, refund towards such ITC was not offered to tax. 4. In not granting an opportunity of being heard prior to passing of draft order, in respect of addition of INR 33,35,64,406 made to the returned income of the Appellant

Krc Foundation, Palwal vs. CIT Exemptions, Chandigarh

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

ITA 3929/DEL/2025[2025-26]Status: HeardITAT Delhi01 Aug 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Jitender Wadhwa, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

file of the ld CIT(E) for de novo adjudication in accordance with law. Needless to mention that the assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. Ld CIT(E) is directed to send notice of hearing in the email mentioned in Form No. 36 by the assessee. The assessee

Krc Foundation, Palwal vs. CIT Exemptions, Chandigarh

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

ITA 3928/DEL/2025[2025-26]Status: HeardITAT Delhi01 Aug 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Jitender Wadhwa, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

file of the ld CIT(E) for de novo adjudication in accordance with law. Needless to mention that the assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. Ld CIT(E) is directed to send notice of hearing in the email mentioned in Form No. 36 by the assessee. The assessee

Mrs. Nidhi Yadav, Dehradun vs. ITO, Rudrapur

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

ITA 117/DDN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.115/Ddn/2024, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No.117/Ddn/2024, A.Y. 2015-16 Nidhi Yadav, Vs. Income Tax Officer, B-801, Forest Residency, Ward 2(1)(4), Dehradun, Uttarakhand Income Tax Office, Pin Code: 248014 Rudrapur, Uttarakhand Pan: Acapy5157E (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Mohit Dev, Ca Respondent By Sh. Amarpal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am Common Facts & Similar Grounds Arise In The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee; Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order.

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

dismissal of both appeals. With the help of facts mentioned in orders of the Authorities below, the Ld. Sr. DR submitted that sufficient opportunities of being heard were provided to the appellant assessee by the AO and the Ld. CIT(A) but in vain. He submitted that the appellant assessee ... matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the case afresh, in accordance with law, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant assessee. Ordered accordingly. The appellant assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in remitted Appellate proceedings. 12. In the result, the assessee

Smt. Nidhi Yadav, Dehradun vs. ITO- W-2(1)(4), Rudrapur

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

ITA 115/DDN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.115/Ddn/2024, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No.117/Ddn/2024, A.Y. 2015-16 Nidhi Yadav, Vs. Income Tax Officer, B-801, Forest Residency, Ward 2(1)(4), Dehradun, Uttarakhand Income Tax Office, Pin Code: 248014 Rudrapur, Uttarakhand Pan: Acapy5157E (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Mohit Dev, Ca Respondent By Sh. Amarpal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am Common Facts & Similar Grounds Arise In The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee; Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order.

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

dismissal of both appeals. With the help of facts mentioned in orders of the Authorities below, the Ld. Sr. DR submitted that sufficient opportunities of being heard were provided to the appellant assessee by the AO and the Ld. CIT(A) but in vain. He submitted that the appellant assessee ... matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the case afresh, in accordance with law, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant assessee. Ordered accordingly. The appellant assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in remitted Appellate proceedings. 12. In the result, the assessee

Rajbir Singh, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer, Nakodar

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

ITA 83/ASR/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, A.R
Section 144Section 147Section 250

case on the file. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) gravely erred In passing the appellate order without giving a proper opportunity of being heard. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has gravely erred In sustaining the addition of Rs. 50,07,000/- in respect of deposits in bank account ... deposits in his bank before the A.O., and the matter is set aside for fresh assessment. 9. The assessee will be allowed reasonable opportunity of being heard. 10. We have not expressed any opinion on merits and all legal grounds taken by the assessee are kept open

Educate All Charitable Trust, Jammu and Kashmir vs. CIT (Exemptions), Chandigargh, Chandigarh

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

ITA 180/ASR/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

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

For Appellant: Sh. Abhinav Vijh, C.A. &
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

remand the matter back to the files of the ld. CIT(E) with the above directions. 12. The assessee may be allowed proper opportunity of being heard and to file all necessary documents in support of the application for registration. 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee

Sunil Kumar Agarwal and Sons, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bilaspur

ITA 434/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 434/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 183Section 250Section 69A

matter came up before the ITAT, it had failed to address the infirmity regarding the fact that the assessee was not afforded proper opportunity of being heard and the matter was dismissed ex-parte by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC which amounted to violation of principles of natural justice ... part of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In light of such decision, the petitioner ought to have been granted an opportunity of being heard which, partakes the characteristic of the fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 11. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay

Ashok Kumar Kejriwal, Raigarh vs. DCIT Circle1(1), Bilaspur

ITA 425/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 425/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56Section 69A

matter came up before the ITAT, it had failed to address the infirmity regarding the fact that the assessee was not afforded proper opportunity of being heard and the matter was dismissed ex-parte by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC which amounted to violation of principles of natural justice ... part of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In light of such decision, the petitioner ought to have been granted an opportunity of being heard which, partakes the characteristic of the fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 11. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay

Ravi Raika, Bhilai vs. ACIT-1(1), Bhilai

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

ITA 423/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.422 & 423/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2015-16 Ravi Raika 22/4, Nehru Nagar West, Bhilai (C.G.)-490 020 Pan: Acjpa2125R ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Moolchand Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 68

justice, one of them is “audi alterm partem” which mandates that before taking any action against the party, they must be given an opportunity to be heard and present their case. 7. The right to be heard is the cornerstone of natural justice and in this regard in the case ... considered view that the approach of the High Court in making the observations against the appellant without giving him any opportunity of being heard is totally unsustainable in law.” The bench went on to delete the entire portion of the high court’s order that contained the contentious remarks

Ravi Raika, Bhilai vs. ACIT-1(1), Bhilai

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

ITA 422/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.422 & 423/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2015-16 Ravi Raika 22/4, Nehru Nagar West, Bhilai (C.G.)-490 020 Pan: Acjpa2125R ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Moolchand Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 68

justice, one of them is “audi alterm partem” which mandates that before taking any action against the party, they must be given an opportunity to be heard and present their case. 7. The right to be heard is the cornerstone of natural justice and in this regard in the case ... considered view that the approach of the High Court in making the observations against the appellant without giving him any opportunity of being heard is totally unsustainable in law.” The bench went on to delete the entire portion of the high court’s order that contained the contentious remarks

Vandana Narendra Lodha, Pune vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur

ITA 419/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / It A No: 419/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Appellant: None (adjournment Application)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 250Section 69

matter came up before the ITAT, it had failed to address the infirmity regarding the fact that the assessee was not afforded proper opportunity of being heard and the matter was dismissed ex-parte by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC which amounted to violation of principles of natural justice ... part of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In light of such decision, the petitioner ought to have been granted an opportunity of being heard which, partakes the characteristic of the fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 11. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay

Shree Society, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 226/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.226/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shree Society Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward 1(5) Pan:Aanas1911Q Visakhapatnam (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri I Rama Sastry, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 31/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30/03/2024 Of The Learned Pr.Cit Passed U/S 263 R.W.S. 254 Of The Act For The A.Y 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri I Rama Sastry, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

condonation petition filed, to controvert the findings of the AO as well as the Ld.PCIT. He, therefore, pleaded for affording another opportunity of being heard to the assessee before the Ld.PCIT to substantiate it's case, keeping in view the principles of natural justice or else, the assessee would ... inclined to remit the matter back to the file of the PCIT and direct the Ld.PCIT to afford the assessee, another opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to adhere to the notices issued by the Ld.PCIT promptly and furnish relevant material evidences to substantiate it's case

Aleykutty George, Idukki vs. ITO, Ward 1 and Tps, Thodupuzha

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

ITA 468/COCH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2020-21 Aleykutty George .......... Appellant Chemplayil House, Thekkady Road, Kumily P.O., Idukki District, Kerala [Pan: Blqpg 9231 D] Vs. The Assessment Unit .......... Respondent Income Tax Department Appellant By: Ms. Binisha Baby, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Ms. Binisha Baby, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR

relevant assessment year. Accordingly, the matter is restored to the file of AO directing to redo the assessment after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 3 Alekutty George 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

Siju Sankaran Kutty, Ernakulam vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corp Ward 2(3), Errnakualm

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

ITA 417/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Siju Sankaran Kutty, .......... Appellant T76A, Thrikkakara Temple Road, Soubhagya Nagar, Kochi. [Pan: Cqxpk 4816 R] Vs. Ito, Non-Corp, .......... Respondent Ward-2(3), Kochi Appellant By: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena La, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena La, Sr. DR

therefore, the matter is restored to the file of the AO for re-doing the assessment in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, the appeal filed

Mary Matha Province of Vincentian Congregation, Angamaly vs. DCIT, Exemption Circle, Kochi

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

ITA 375/COCH/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mary Matha Province Of .......... Appellant Vincentian Congregation National Highway, Anagamaly South P.O., Ernakulam, Kerala. [Pan: Aaatm 4441 R] Vs. Dy. Director Of Income Tax (Exemption), .......... Respondent Range-4, Kochi.

For Appellant: Shri C.J. Romid, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 143(3)

expenditure. Therefore, I set aside the matter back to the file of AO for denovo adjudication in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open