“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

Shree Gomtesh Nagari Sah Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Sangli vs. ITO Ward 5, Sangli

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

ITA 924/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Amol R KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR and Ms

Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

Following similar reasonings, we restore this appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC for fresh adjudication after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 15. Facts of the case, in brief, are that ... file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 19. In the result

Mtw Mission 2K34 Foundation, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 904/PUN/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.904/Pun/2025 Mtw Mission 2K34 Foundation, Cit (Exemption), Pune S. No. 554/2, Pl 18A, Fl 402, Nancy Palace, Gidney Park, Vs. Gultekadi, Market Yard, Pune-411037 Pan : Aapcm7688C अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Jasraj Sutar Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 29-07-2025 Date Of 31-07-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.03.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune [“Cit(E)”] Whereby He Rejected The Application Of The Assessee Filed Before Him On 16.11.2024 In Form No. 10Ab Under Section 12A(1)(Ac)(Vi)-Item(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Jasraj SutarFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

directly relevant to the present proceedings. However, the assessee has failed to comply despite giving sufficient opportunities as discussed above including an opportunity of being heard. 8. Thus, the assessee has failed to furnish the details called for under the provisions of section 12AB(1)(b)(i) of the Income ... matter may be set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) to adjudicate the same afresh on merits after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In support thereof, the Ld. AR placed reliance on the decision(s) of the coordinate bench of the Pune Tribunal

Niramala Vijay and Priya Darekar Foundation, Pune vs. CIT (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 893/PUN/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.893/Pun/2025 Nirmala Vijay & Priya Darekar Foundation, Cit Exemption, Pune Ground Floor/1St Floor, Plot No. 7, Hadapsar S.O., Pune-411028 Vs. Pan : Aadtn5633P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Department By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 24-07-2025 Date Of 31-07-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.09.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune [“Cit(E)”] Whereby He Rejected The Application Of The Assessee Filed Before Him On 09.03.2024 In Form No. 10Ab Under Clause (Iii) Of Section 12A(1)(Ac) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

registration u/s 12A of ITA, 1961. 3. The learned CIT (Exemption), Pune; erred in law and on facts in not providing sufficient reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant, as provided u/s 12AB of the ITA, 1961; to submit the details / information. Appellant contends that, Appellant is keen ... matter may be set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) to 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

Dar E Aqram Eductaion Charitable Trust, Pune vs. ITO Exemption Ward 1(2), Pune

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 739/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.738 & 739/Pun/2025 Dar E Arqam Education Charitable Trust, Galli No. 9, Sr. No. 54, Shivneri Nagar, Kondhwa Khurd, Pune-411048 Vs. Ito, Exemption, Ward – 1(2), Pune Pan: Aactd0454F अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Piyush Bafna Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 30-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-07-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 18.03.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune (“Cit(E)") Rejecting The Application(S) For Grant Of Registration U/S 12A & Approval U/S 80G Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The "Act") Filed On 29.09.2023 & 30.09.2023 Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, Both These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. 2. Both The Appeals Have Been Filed With A Delay Of 293 Days Before The Tribunal For Which The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. On Perusal Of The Same, We Are Satisfied That The Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Not Intentional Or Deliberate But Has Occurred For The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit. After Hearing Both The Sides, We Are Of The View That The Delay Is Attributable To The Sufficient Cause. We, Therefore, In Light Of The Decisions Of The Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 Itr 471 (Sc) & In The Case Of Inder Singh Vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Reported In 2025 Livelaw (Sc) 339, Condone The Said Delay & Proceed To Decide The Appeal. 3. In Ita No.738/Pun/2025, The Assessee Has Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Cit(E) In Rejecting The Application For Registration U/S 12A Of The Act While

For Appellant: Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 36ASection 80G

facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(Exemption), Pune has erred in rejecting the application without affording adequate opportunity of being heard and without ensuring proper service of notices in accordance with the law. Unjustified Cancellation of Provisional Approval 6. On the facts ... matter may be set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) to adjudicate the same afresh on merits after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 9. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the order of the Ld. CIT(E) but had no objection

Dar E Arqam Education Charitable Trust, Pune vs. ITO Exemption Ward 1(2), Pune

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 738/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

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

For Appellant: Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 36ASection 80G

Jankalyan Foundation, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 303/PUN/2025[Not applicable]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrajankalyan Foundation Cit(Exemption), Pune 14/2, Flat No.B/9, Ganesh Heights, Vs. Ganesh Nagar, Dapodi, Pune – 411012 Pan: Aaiaj1981E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jasraj Sutar Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 31-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-07-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Jasraj SutarFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

directly 3 relevant to the present proceedings. However, the assessee has failed to comply despite giving sufficient opportunities as discussed above including an opportunity of being heard. 5.1 Thus, the assessee has failed to furnish the details called for under the provisions of section 12AB

Shri Gorakshan Sanstha Udgir, Udgir vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 265/PUN/2025[202223]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Bharat ShahFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

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

registration granted under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should not be cancelled. The assessee was also given opportunity of being heard vide the said notice. The assessee was specifically informed that in the event of failure to comply by the due date, the application shall be liable ... assessee through e-portal and email. However, the assessee neither submitted explanation to the show cause notice till date nor availed the opportunity of being heard. 6 Since, the assessee has not furnished any explanation to the discrepancies communicated to it, it is presumed that the assessee has nothing

Shri Gorakshan Sanstha Udgir, Udgir vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 264/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Shri Bharat ShahFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

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

Bhagavan Devaram Patil, Jalgaon vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Jalgaon

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

ITA 1447/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250

ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) in the course of set-aside proceedings shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Ld.CIT(A) may call for remand report from the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, if necessary, and after considering the submissions/evidences filed

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Panvel vs. Aswad Jaidas Patil, Pezari Post Poynad

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

ITA 462/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Prakash G JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250(4)Section 68Section 69A

were not filed during the remand proceedings. The Assessing Officer shall decide this issue afresh and in accordance with law after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ground raised by the assessee on this issue is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 16. The third issue raised

Aswad Jaidas Patil, Raigad vs. Dy, Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-Panvel, Panvel

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

ITA 344/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Prakash G JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250(4)Section 68Section 69A

Shri Ganesh Ssk Ltd, Ahmednagar vs. DCIT Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 2580/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Ganesh Ssk Ltd. Dcit, Ahmednagar Circle A/P Ranjangaon Khurd, Vs. Tal. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar – 413719 Pan: Aaeas0636H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hanmant Dattatray Dhavle Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-07-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Hanmant Dattatray DhavleFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-Dr

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 155(19)Section 40A(2)

concessional price instead of market price and concessional price and decide the issue afresh and in accordance with law after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes

Shri Gautam Gupta, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward 47(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1192/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1192/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Gautam Gupta…………………..……..…………………....Appellant 20/4/4, Sarada Chatterjee Lane, Howrah, Kadamtala S.O (Howrah), Howrah, W.B – 71101. [Pan: Arwpg0842P] Vs. Ito, Ward-47(1), Kolkata……………....…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Arya Das, Ar & Subhajit Roy, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 31, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 31/07/2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], Kolkata, Dated 27.03.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order Under Section 147/143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018–19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, Engaged In The Business Under The Proprietorship Concern Named M/S. Ma Durga Enterprises, Filed The Return Of Income Declaring Income Of ₹6,55,790. During The Course Of Reassessment Proceedings Initiated Under Section 148 Of The Act, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Made An Addition Of ₹20,00,845, Treating The Purchases Made From M/S. Devyansh Delcom Pvt. Ltd. As Bogus, Based On The Findings That The Said Entity Was Non-

Section 147Section 148

claimed to be due I.T.A. No.1192/Kol/2025 Shri Gautam Gupta to illness, is not of such magnitude that it should deny the assessee an opportunity of being heard on merits. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and fair play, we condone the delay of three days in filing the appeal before

Shriram Properties (Coimbatore) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-1, Coimbatore

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

ITA 964/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.964/Chny/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16 V. Shriram Properties (Coimbatore) Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Corporate Ward-1, No.31, 2Nd Main Road, Coimbatore. T Chowdaiah Road, Sadashivanagar, Bangalore, Karnataka-560080. [Pan: Aakcs3522N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.Ananthan, C.A & Smt.R.Lalitha, C.A, : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By Mr.Bipin C.N, Cit : सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing 30.07.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Mr.Ananthan, C.A &

Section 143(3)Section 14A

received hearing notice issued by the Ld.CIT(A) although the assessee had earlier sought adjournments. He further prayed that one more opportunity of being heard be given to the assessee to substantiate its case before the Ld.CIT(A). 6. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representive, Mr.Bipin C.N, CIT relied ... aside this appeal to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for de novo adjudication of the appeal after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case forthwith without fail, failing which the Ld.CIT(A) at liberty to proceed with the appellate

Cyber Pearl Information Technology Park Private Limited, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward - 1(3), Chennai

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

ITA 928/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.928/Chny/2025 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Cyber Pearl Information The Income Tax Officer, Technology Park Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ward-1(3), Unit No.7 & 8, 1St Floor, Chennai. Pinnacle Building, Csir Road, International Tech Park, Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. [Pan: Aaacl 8207F]

For Appellant: Ms. Mahima Goud, Advocate (Virtual) for Ms. K.V.Mayuri, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 147

Authorized Representative (A.R) of the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without affording a proper opportunity of being heard. It was therefore prayed that one more opportunity be granted to the assessee to substantiate its case. Cyber Pearl Information Technology Park

Aa281 Urachikottai Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Erode vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Erode

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

ITA 650/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.650/Chny/2025 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Aa281 Urachikottai Primary The Dy. Commissioner Of Agricultural Cooperative Credit Vs. Income Tax, Society Ltd., Circle-1, Kuruppanayakkanpalayam P.O., Erode. Bhavani, Erode – 638 301. [Pan:Aafaa 7568R]

For Appellant: Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, C.A (virtual)For Respondent: Shri M.Mohan Babu, Addl. CIT

Section 144Section 69A

admit the appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) shall decide the matter afresh in accordance with law, after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard to substantiate its case. The assessee is also directed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) on the date of hearing without fail

Sharadamma L/R of Late Basave Gowda, Hassan vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hassan

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

ITA 86/BANG/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CA

Section 147Section 148Section 68

lower authorities and remit the issue to the file of the AO for doing the assessment afresh after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the L/R of the deceased assessee. The L/R of the deceased assessee may also furnish the correct correspondence address to the jurisdictional assessing officer

Sharadamma L/R of Late Basave Gowda, Hassan vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hassan

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

ITA 85/BANG/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CA

Section 147Section 148Section 68

Sharadamma L/R of Late Basave Gowda, Hassan vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hassan

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

ITA 84/BANG/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CA

Section 147Section 148Section 68

Veena Anand, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ward No. 2(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 583/BANG/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2022-23 Smt. Veena Anand, Vs. Acit, No.148, 6Th Main, Bagalur Cross, Yelahanka, Ward – 2(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 063. Bangalore. Pan : Ahipv 3465 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Balram R Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ashwin D Gowda, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Balram R Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ashwin D Gowda, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 143(2)

this issue back to the jurisdictional CIT(A) with a cost of Rs.5,000/-. The learned CIT(A) is directed to give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue as per law and assessee is directed to prove the cash deposits with documentary evidence