← 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

Sadhubella Education Society, Mumbai vs. ITO Exemption 2(3), Mumbai

ITA 3106/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: the Tribunal after delay of 403 days.4. We have heard both the sides and have perused the material on record.

For Appellant: Ms. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250

directed to adjudicate the grounds raised by the Assessee in appeal on merits as per law after granting Assessee an opportunity of being heard. 8. In terms of the above, the appeal preferred by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced on 22.07.2025. (Om Prakash Kant) Judicial Member

Neeta Jigensh Vasariya, Bhayander West vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Thane

ITA 3101/MUM/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025

Bench: the CIT(A) in physical form which was later migrated to National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). The aforesaid appeal were disposed off by the Learned CIT(A) vide order, dated 19/12/2022. The CIT(A) dismissed the grounds raised by the Assessee observing that the Assessee had failed to bring on record supporting evidence to establish the source of cash and to corroborate the contention that the Assessee was holding cash from the Financial Year 2009-2010 to Financial Year 2016-2017.

For Appellant: Shri Akshit KothariFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

hereby assure department that above cash deposit of Rs.10,86,000/- is my genuine cash and can prove the same if provided an opportunity of being heard .” 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the assessment under Section 143(3)/144 of the Act was framed on the Assessee ... Assessee is set aside, with the directions to the Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh after granting the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Assessee is directed to file before the Assessing Officer all documents/details to establish the source of cash deposit of INR.10

Sebastian Francis Chalissery, Mumbai vs. ITO, Vashi, Navi Mumbai

ITA 3034/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: lower authorities. Due to such incompetency, the assessment was concluded ex-parte without dealing merits, causing serious prejudice to the appellant.

For Appellant: Ms. Shivani ShahFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe
Section 144Section 250Section 69A

Accordingly, we accept the contention of the Assessee that the CIT(A) had failed to grant to the Assessee any opportunity to being heard in relation to reasons for delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, given the facts and circumstances of the present case, we deem it appropriate ... passed by the CIT(A) with the directions to decide the application seeking condonation of delay afresh after granting the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Assessee would be at liberty to file such documents/details/submission in support of the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal

Omega Infrastructures, Mumbai vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2356/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.

Section 147Section 68

case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the additions made by the Id. Ao without providing the sufficient opportunity of being heard in gross violation of principle of natural justice. In view of the facts and circumstance, the same liable to be quashed. 2. On facts

Esenzzaro Beverages Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT - Circle 4(2)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 1463/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am Esenzzaro Beverages Private Limited Dcit, Circle-4(2)(1) 55/2, Nadibhag, Mollapara, 2Nd Lane, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Digberia, Madhyamgram, North 24, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Parganas-700 128, West Bengal

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JainFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi

issue on merit is concerned, the primary grievance of the assessee is against ex parte disposal of its appeal without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard. We find from record, hearing of appeal before the learned First Appellate Authority commenced in the year 2020 when Covid ... order of the learned First Appellate Authority and restore the matter back to him for de novo adjudication on merits after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open

Albert Joseph Rozario, Mumbai vs. ITO, Int. Tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1168/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2018-19 Albert Joseph Rozario, Ito, (Int. Tax), Circle-4(1)(1), B-311, 5Th Wing, Room No. 629, 6Th Floor, Inlaks Park, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Yari Road, Versova, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Andheri West, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400058 Bandra East, Pan : Afvpr6139P Mumbai-400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Dharan Gandhi For Revenue : Shri Sridhar G. Menon, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22-07-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 R/W 144C(13) Of The Act Dt. 30-12-2024, Consequent To The Directions Given By The Ld. Drp-1, Mumbai-3, U/S 144C(5) Of The Act, Dated 30-11-2024 Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay.) 2018-19. 2. Briefly The Facts Of The Case Are That Basis Information Available Through The Insight Portal That The Assessee Had Purchased Immoveable Properties Amounting To Rs. 8,31,45,549/- & Has Received Interest

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar G. Menon, Sr.DR
Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 56(2)(x)Section 69

fact that the assessee did not file any return of income, proceedings u/s. 148A of the Act were initiated and an opportunity of being heard was provided to the assessee as per the provisions of section 148A(b) of the Act vide notice dt. 23-03-2022 wherein the assessee ... approval of specified authority, with respect to the information which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; (b) provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, with the prior approval of specified authority, by serving upon him a notice to show cause within such time

Pratap Singh Rathi, Ghaziabad vs. Pr. CIT (Central), Kanpur

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 502/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Sh. Pratap Singh Rathi, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of C-143, Surya Nagar, Income Tax , Ghaziabad Knp At Meerut Pin 201 001 Pan No. Ahkpr0582M (Appellant)M (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Shrey Jain &For Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

case, Ld. Pr.CIT has erred in law and on facts in passing the impugned order u/s 263 and that too without providing the opportunity of being heard and in violation of principles of natural justice. 4. That having regard to facts & circumstances of the case, Ld. Pr.CIT has erred

Bhatia Medicos, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-(3)1_, Jalandhar

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

ITA 688/ASR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal & Sh. Anil Miglani, Adv
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

account of non- 6 I.T.A. No. 688/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 service of notice. As such, he prays for reasonable opportunity of being heard to present his case. 9. The ld. DR has no objection if the matter is remanded back to the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication ... account including cash book for proper explanations of cash being deposited in bank during the demonetization period. The assessee shall be allowed reasonable opportunity of being heard. 12. We have not expressed any opinion on merits 7 I.T.A. No. 688/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 13. In the result, the appeal

Kesarwani Brothers, Allahabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Allahabad

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

ITA 29/ALLD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriakesarwani Brothers V. Dcit, Central Circle 21, University Road, Allahabad, Allahabad Uttar Pradesh-211002. Uttar Pradesh-211001. Pan:Aapfk3311F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri S. K. Jaiswal Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S. K. JaiswalFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 250

learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing appeal in limine without affording adequate and effective opportunity of being heard. 2. BECAUSE the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in holding that sufficient opportunity were provided

Maa Sharda Corporation, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 135/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.135/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Maa Sharda Corporation 16A, Raj Vatika, Baloda Bazar Road, Samariya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Aasfm4607R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 282

requested that an order originated on basis of an unserved notice, thereby the assessee was deprived of on account of no proper opportunity of being heard, therefore, the same is null and void ab initio in the eyes of law and, accordingly, order passed by Ld. PCIT under

Jainam Charitable Trust, Surat vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 175/SRT/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Jul 2025

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.174 & 175/Srt/2025 (Hybrid Hearing) Jainam Charitable Trust, Vs. The Cit (Exemption), 02, Samta Bunglows, Nehru Nagar Ahmedabad Dumas Road, Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaetj2070K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2025

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 253(3)Section 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

merit before the CIT(E). It is settled law that principles of natural justice require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest its case. Therefore, without delving much into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order ... also set aside and remitted to the file of CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after granting reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant. For statistical purposes, this appeal of the assessee is also treated as allowed. 13. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Jainam Charitable Trust, Surat vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 174/SRT/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Jul 2025

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.174 & 175/Srt/2025 (Hybrid Hearing) Jainam Charitable Trust, Vs. The Cit (Exemption), 02, Samta Bunglows, Nehru Nagar Ahmedabad Dumas Road, Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaetj2070K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2025

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 253(3)Section 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

merit before the CIT(E). It is settled law that principles of natural justice require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest its case. Therefore, without delving much into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order ... also set aside and remitted to the file of CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after granting reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant. For statistical purposes, this appeal of the assessee is also treated as allowed. 13. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Dharti Ekta Charitable Trust, Surat vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 171/SRT/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Jul 2025

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.171/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2024-25) (Hybrid Hearing) Dharti Ekta Charitable Trust, Vs. Cit (Exemption), At & Post – Haripur, Tal – Uchchhal, Dist – Ahmedabad Tapi, Tapi – 394375, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaetd5352L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Esmayeel Saherwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2025

Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(ii)Section 80G(5)(iii)

case before the CIT(E). It is settled law that principles of natural justice require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to present his case. Therefore, without delving deeper into the merits of the case, in the interests of justice, we restore the matter ... file of CIT(E) for fresh adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to furnish its submission and the relevant 4 Dhatri Ekta Charitable Trust details/documents before the CIT(E). For statistical purposes, the appeal

Anupam Shailesh Syal, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2)(6), Surat

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

ITA 1281/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1281/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Anupam Shailesh Syal, Vs. Ito, 103, 104 Jay Vijay Park, Near Ward – 3(2)(6), Sardar Bridge, Adaja, Surat-395009 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Andps7890N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Kiran K. Shah, Ca Respondent By Ms. Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2025

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

subject, the ld Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Guwahati has erred in passing ex-parte order without giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard. 2. The ld Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Guwahati has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in confirming

Vinita Bajoria, Jaipur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 370/JPR/2025[201617]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 370/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Vinita Bajoria 1, Ganesh Colony Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur बनाम Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2), Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AEBPB4873M अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Manoj Choudhary, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear

For Appellant: Sh. Manoj Choudhary, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 148A

Assessing Officer, after taking into account all relevant material which the Assessing Officer has gathered, shall, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard, make the assessment of the total income or loss to the best of his judgment and determine the sum payable by the assessee ... issue of notice under section 148.. 148A. The Assessing Officer shall, before issuing any notice under section 148,- (a) ... (b) provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, 1[*] by serving upon him a notice to show cause within such time, as may be specified in the notice

Vinod Kumar Sharma, Gangapurcity vs. The Income Tax Officer, Karauli

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

ITA 308/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri G.N. Sharma, Advocate (Thru: VH)For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148oSection 151Section 69

upheld, hence confirmed. Thus, the grounds of appeal no.2 & 3 are dismissed. 8. During the appellate proceedings, despite being provided multiple opportunities of being heard, the appellant has failed to provide any persuasive or credible evidence to substantiate his claims. In fact, appellant had simply filed appeal against the Assessment ... assessee prayed to restore the appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication but by providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.From the records, it is noticed that various opportunities were provided to the assessee for settling the issue but the assessee remained lethargic

Sayed Hilal, Lucknow vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range VI, Lucknow

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

ITA 300/LKW/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow21 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshrasayed Hilal V. Dy. Commissioner Of Behind Nawab Market, Income Tax Range-Vi Musaibganj, Lucknow-226003. Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 57, Ram Tirath Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Abyph7272E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 144Section 69A

circumstance of the case, the order of Assessment has been passed in absolute violation of the principles of Natural Justice, without providing adequate opportunity of being heard and therefore deserves to be declared a nullity. 5. The appellant craves for leave to add, modify, amend or delete any other ... matter was restored to his file for deciding the issue fresh, after obtaining remand report from the Assessing Officer and after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both the sides. Subsequently, fresh appellate order dated 07.02.2025 was passed by the Ld. CIT(A). The present appeal has been filed

Gopal Chand, Anni vs. ITO, Rampur Bushahr

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

ITA 810/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Isha Sharma, Advocate(Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 69A

adjudication. The AO shall verify all relevant facts, documents, and submissions of the assessee independently and dispose of the matter after affording due opportunity of being heard. 5.3 We clarify that this remand is being made without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, and all contentions

Daxen Agritech India Pvt. Ltd., Baddi vs. ACIT, Circle, Parwanoo

In the result, all the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 473/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jul 2025AY 2018-19
For Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80

aside. 9. That the impugned Orders had been passed in gross violation of the principle of natural justice and without allowing reasonable/effective opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 10. That the appellant craves to add, amend, or alter grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard and disposed

Daxen Agritech India Pvt. Ltd., Baddi vs. ACIT, Circle, Parwanoo

In the result, all the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 472/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Aman Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80

aside. 9. That the impugned Orders had been passed in gross violation of the principle of natural justice and without allowing reasonable/effective opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 1 0. That the appellant craves to add, amend, or alter grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard