← 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

Nimmagadda Muralidhar, Nidadavole vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Tanuku

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 188/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.188/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward – 1 Nimmagadda Muralidhar D.No. 3-123 Income Tax Office Samisragudem Village Aayakar Bhavan Near Zph High School Sajjapuram, Tanuku – 534211 Nidadavole Mandal Andhra Pradesh West Godavari District Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Anbpn7016M] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparnavilluri, Sr. Ar

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

Revenue. The time limits prescribed by Section 148A(b) of the Act is reproduced below for ready reference: - “148A (b) provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, by serving upon him a notice to show cause within such time, as may be specified in the notice, being

Ganesh Transports, Vijayawada vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 480/VIZ/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No. 479/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ganesh Transports Vs. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1(1) Cr Building, 1St Floor Annex Flat No. 504, Umamaheswari Towers West Ibrahimpatnam M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Vijayawada – 521456 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aaifm6717G] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No. 480/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ganesh Transports Vs. Asst. Cit – Circle – 1(1) Cr Building, 1St Floor Annex Flat No. 504, Umamaheswari Towers West Ibrahimpatnam M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Vijayawada – 521456 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaifm6717G] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Mv Prasad, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

appellant firm has valid and sufficient reasons for occurrence of such delay. The Learned CIT(Appeals) ought to have accorded a further opportunity of being heard before rejecting such plea in view of principles of natural justice. 3. The Learned CIT(Appeals) ought to have adjudicated the appeal

Ganesh Transports, Vijayawada vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 479/VIZ/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No. 479/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ganesh Transports Vs. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1(1) Cr Building, 1St Floor Annex Flat No. 504, Umamaheswari Towers West Ibrahimpatnam M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Vijayawada – 521456 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aaifm6717G] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No. 480/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ganesh Transports Vs. Asst. Cit – Circle – 1(1) Cr Building, 1St Floor Annex Flat No. 504, Umamaheswari Towers West Ibrahimpatnam M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Vijayawada – 521456 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaifm6717G] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Mv Prasad, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

appellant firm has valid and sufficient reasons for occurrence of such delay. The Learned CIT(Appeals) ought to have accorded a further opportunity of being heard before rejecting such plea in view of principles of natural justice. 3. The Learned CIT(Appeals) ought to have adjudicated the appeal

Shree Jee Timbers, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 679/JPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA No. 679/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year : 2022-23 M/s. Shree Jee Timbers B-33, Opposite 200 Ft. Bypass, Ayodhya Nagar, Chitrakoot, Jaipur – 302 021 बनाम The ITO Ward-1 (1) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ACQFS 6816 C अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby :ShriShrawan Kumar Gupta, Advocate राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT

For Appellant: ShriShrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 68

grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the in passing the Ex-party order, without providing adequate opportunity of being heard in gross breach of law which are bad in law, invalid, llegal and on facts of the case, also erred in not considering the vital ... assessee for the reason that the assessee was provided multiple 3 M/S. SHREE JEE TIMBERS VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR opportunities of being heard but the assessee had not responded to the same and the assessee is not aggrieved with the assessment order. The narration so made

Kota Vipassana Trust, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

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

ITA 557/JPR/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपील सं./ITA No. 257 & 557/JP/2025 U/S 12AB & 80G of the Act निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year : 2025-26 Kota Vipassana Trust बनाम The CIT (Exemption) Vs. Jaipur 1, Dhammathali, Via Sisodiya Rani Ka Bagh Galta Ji Road, Jaipur – 302 002 स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAETK 8352 P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Shailesh Mantri, CA राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Mantri, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee in the above appeals mainly submitted that the assessee was not provided adequate opportunity of being heard by the ld. CIT(E). The ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the matter may be set aside to the file ... pass order after providing sufficient opportunity of being heard and to consider the certificate under RPT Act, 1959 as the assessee trust has been granted certificate under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 on 19-02- 2025 by Office of Asstt. Commissioner (First), DevsthanVibhag, Jaipur Khand, Jaipur

Shivohum Public Charitable Trust, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

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

ITA 549/JPR/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA No. 548&549/JP/2025 U/S 12AB & 80G of the Act निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear :- Shivohum Public Charitable Trust Pulse Hospital,N.H.8, Kotputli Jaipur 303 108 (Raj) Jaipur बनाम The CIT (Exemption) Vs. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABHTS 1081 K निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri R.S. Poonia, CA राजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by: Mrs. Alka Gautam, C

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee in the above appeals mainly submitted that the assessee was not provided adequate opportunity of being heard by the ld. CIT(E). The ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the appeals may be set aside to the file ... pass order after providing sufficient opportunity of being heard. SHIVOHUM PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST VS CIT (E), JAIPUR Conclusively, the ld AR of the assessee prayed that the assessee trust may be provided with one more opportunity to the contest the case of the assessee before

Shivohum Public Charitable Trust, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

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

ITA 548/JPR/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA No. 548&549/JP/2025 U/S 12AB & 80G of the Act निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year :- Shivohum Public Charitable Trust Pulse Hospital,N.H.8, Kotputli Jaipur 303 108 (Raj) Jaipur बनाम Vs. The CIT (Exemption) Jaipur अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABHTS 1081 K निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri R.S. Poonia, CA राजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by: Mrs. Alka G

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee in the above appeals mainly submitted that the assessee was not provided adequate opportunity of being heard by the ld. CIT(E). The ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the appeals may be set aside to the file ... pass order after providing sufficient opportunity of being heard. SHIVOHUM PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST VS CIT (E), JAIPUR Conclusively, the ld AR of the assessee prayed that the assessee trust may be provided with one more opportunity to the contest the case of the assessee before

Sylvan Greens Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 414/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Bhala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 801C

That the order passed under section 250 of Income Tax Act by the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) without providing the proper opportunity of being heard, is contrary to the principles of natural justice and equity and liable to be quashed. 2.1 Brief facts of the case are that

Kota Vipassana Trust, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

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

ITA 257/JPR/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपील सं./ITA No. 257 & 557/JP/2025 U/S 12AB & 80G of the Act निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year : 2025-26 Kota Vipassana Trust बनाम The CIT (Exemption) Vs. Jaipur 1, Dhammathali, Via Sisodiya Rani Ka Bagh Galta Ji Road, Jaipur – 302 002 स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAETK 8352 P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Shailesh Mantri, CA राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Mantri, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee in the above appeals mainly submitted that the assessee was not provided adequate opportunity of being heard by the ld. CIT(E). The ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the matter may be set aside to the file ... pass order after providing sufficient opportunity of being heard and to consider the certificate under RPT Act, 1959 as the assessee trust has been granted certificate under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 on 19-02- 2025 by Office of Asstt. Commissioner (First), DevsthanVibhag, Jaipur Khand, Jaipur

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula Circle, Panchkula vs. Aqua Fiber Indsutries, Panchkula

ITA 508/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the detailed submissions and supporting evidences furnished by the assessee, deleted the additions.4. The Revenue's challenge is confined to the CIT(A)'s acceptance of additional evidence allegedly in violation of Rule 46A. The merits of the deletion have not been independently challenged.

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Meenakshi Vohra, CIT, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

creditworthiness and the genuineness of the purchases, shall be verified afresh by the Assessing Officer, by law, after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is also directed that while adjudicating the issue afresh, the Assessing Officer shall keep in view and consider the binding precedents laid ... file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall adjudicate the same afresh in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee." 11. In the light of our finding given in para 10.1 to 10.4 the appeal of the Revenue is paratly allowed

Nirantar Sadhana Foundation, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 590/PUN/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jul 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhay A. AvchatFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 80GSection 80G(5)

thus the same needs to be set aside. 2 5. The learned CIT erred in passing the order without affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. The Ld. CIT, without considering the fact that activities are de facto carried out, he is not right in doubting

Imran Azad Wallani, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-8(1), Signature Towers, Hyderabad

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

ITA 720/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 17(3)(i)

other additional evidence the assessee may wish to furnish in support of his claim. The Ld. CIT(A) shall grant proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee before deciding the issue. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. M/S. Aragen Life Sciences Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 639/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.639/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dy. Cit Vs. M/S. Aragen Life Sciences Ltd Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabcg3208J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Sp Chidambaram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Narender Kumar Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/07/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri SP Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Narender Kumar Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 80I

proper to remand back these two issues to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to verify after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee whether the bad debts and loan advances were actually written off in the books of account or not. “ 10. The learned

Peoples Progress Trust, Hyderabad vs. CIT(Exemptions), Hyderabd

ITA 635/HYD/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jul 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Us:

Section 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

that is prejudicial to the Trust/Institutions. Ground 3. The CIT(E), Hyderabad failed to issue show cause notice and provide opportunity of being heard regarding delay in filing the application before rejecting it and thereby violating principles of natural justice. Ground 4. The CIT(E), Hyderabad failed to note that

Syed Zahed Ali, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-14(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 474/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.474/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Shri Syed Zahed Ali, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-14(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aifpa6433J (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Y.V. Bhanu Narayan Rao, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Sumitha Parmata, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/07/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 25/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M. : This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Syed Zahed Ali (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 05.02.2025 For The A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri Y.V. Bhanu Narayan RaoFor Respondent: Sumitha Parmata, SR-DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234Section 234BSection 250Section 69A

assessment order and restore both the issues to the file of the ITA No.474/Hyd/2025 9 Ld. AO for denovo adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to file all necessary evidence to substantiate his claims during the remand proceedings

Late. Mohammad Afzaluddin Quraishi Represented by Legal Representative (Lr) Mohammad Masihuddin Qu, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 331/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR
Section 69A

back to the file of First Appellate Authority and the learned CIT(A) is directed to re-consider the issue, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee shall file relevant 7 ITA.No.331/Hyd./2025 details in support of his case

Shooting Stars Foundation, Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1440/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Mr. Babu Peram, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Sr. DR
Section 12(1)(ac)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

examine the application on merits and grant the registration in accordance with law. Needless to say that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is ordered accordingly. 4. In result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court

M/S. Super Auto Forge Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-3(1), Chennai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1358/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Mr. K. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 37Section 80G

assessment to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine the issues mentioned above in detail and complete the assessment after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.” 3. The ld. AR submitted that the twin conditions for invoking the provisions of section 263 are that the order ... erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify

Shree Khandal Vipra Trust, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Ward-3, Bangalore

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

ITA 641/BANG/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Respondent: Smt. Jayashree
Section 12ASection 253(1)(c)Section 80G

rejected, to the file of the Ld.CIT(E) to decide the issue afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is also open to the assessee to place all the material documents before the Ld.CIT(E) while deciding the applications. 13. In the result, both

Shree Khandal Vipra Trust, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Ward-3, Bangalore

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

ITA 640/BANG/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Respondent: Smt. Jayashree
Section 12ASection 253(1)(c)Section 80G

rejected, to the file of the Ld.CIT(E) to decide the issue afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is also open to the assessee to place all the material documents before the Ld.CIT(E) while deciding the applications. 13. In the result, both