← 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

Geethala Tejaswini, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 324/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Us:

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

based on a speaking order. Needless to say, the CIT(A) shall, in the course of the set-aside proceedings, afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 12. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. 13. As the facts

Geethala Tejaswini, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 323/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Us:

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

based on a speaking order. Needless to say, the CIT(A) shall, in the course of the set-aside proceedings, afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 12. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. 13. As the facts

Geethala Tejaswini, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 322/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Us:

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

based on a speaking order. Needless to say, the CIT(A) shall, in the course of the set-aside proceedings, afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 12. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. 13. As the facts

Raising Shakti Foundation, Hyderabad vs. CIT (Exemptions), Hyderabad

ITA 313/HYD/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2025

Bench: Us:

Section 12A

speaking and reasoned order. Needless to say, the CIT(Exemptions) shall in the course of the set aside proceedings, afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee trust to place on record the requisite documents as were earlier called for by him vide notice dated ... aside to his file. Needless to say, the CIT(Exemptions) shall in the course of the set- aside proceedings afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee trust and shall pass a detailed and speaking order after taking into consideration all the submissions made by the assessee trust

Raising Shakti Foundation, Hyderabad vs. CIT(Exemptions), Hyderabad

ITA 312/HYD/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2025

Bench: Us:

Section 12A

speaking and reasoned order. Needless to say, the CIT(Exemptions) shall in the course of the set aside proceedings, afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee trust to place on record the requisite documents as were earlier called for by him vide notice dated ... aside to his file. Needless to say, the CIT(Exemptions) shall in the course of the set- aside proceedings afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee trust and shall pass a detailed and speaking order after taking into consideration all the submissions made by the assessee trust

Premier Poultry Products Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

ITA 985/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Private Ltd. Revenue, and thus, set aside the same with a direction to him to re-adjudicate the issue after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee company. 6. Thereafter, the A.O. vide his order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act, dt.30.03.2022 restricted

Mohammed Sajid Khan, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 40(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2442/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 250

aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the appeal to him to be decided afresh, who shall allow an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and also grant an opportunity of representing the case and be heard to the Ld. AO as per rule

Guru Mariappan Shenbagam Foundation, Madurai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 336/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.334/Chny/2025, Assessment Year: - आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.335/Chny/2025, Assessment Year: - आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.336/Chny/2025, Assessment Year: - Guru Mariappan Shenbagam The Commissioner Of Income Tax Foundation, (Exemption), No.2, West Vpr Cross Road, Chennai. Chokkikulam, Madurai, Tamil Nadu-625 002. [Pan: Aabtg2556L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.Akash, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, Cit

For Appellant: Shri G.Akash, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

regards ITA No.336 the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has informed that the Ld.PCIT(Exemption) has dismissed its appeal without according due opportunity of being heard and by merely relying upon technicalities. Thus, the assessee has submitted that the rejection of its application u/s 80G(5) (iii) is erroneous ... order of the Ld.PCIT(E ) and direct him to readjudicate the assessee’s application for grnat of registration u/s 80G after giving due opportunity of being heard and by passing a speaking order, in accordance with law. The assessee shall comply with all the notices of the PCIT

Guru Mariappan Shenbagam Foundation, Madurai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 335/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.334/Chny/2025, Assessment Year: - आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.335/Chny/2025, Assessment Year: - आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.336/Chny/2025, Assessment Year: - Guru Mariappan Shenbagam The Commissioner Of Income Tax Foundation, (Exemption), No.2, West Vpr Cross Road, Chennai. Chokkikulam, Madurai, Tamil Nadu-625 002. [Pan: Aabtg2556L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.Akash, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, Cit

For Appellant: Shri G.Akash, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

regards ITA No.336 the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has informed that the Ld.PCIT(Exemption) has dismissed its appeal without according due opportunity of being heard and by merely relying upon technicalities. Thus, the assessee has submitted that the rejection of its application u/s 80G(5) (iii) is erroneous ... order of the Ld.PCIT(E ) and direct him to readjudicate the assessee’s application for grnat of registration u/s 80G after giving due opportunity of being heard and by passing a speaking order, in accordance with law. The assessee shall comply with all the notices of the PCIT

Guru Mariappan Shenbagam Foundation, Madurai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 334/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.334/Chny/2025, Assessment Year: - आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.335/Chny/2025, Assessment Year: - आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.336/Chny/2025, Assessment Year: - Guru Mariappan Shenbagam The Commissioner Of Income Tax Foundation, (Exemption), No.2, West Vpr Cross Road, Chennai. Chokkikulam, Madurai, Tamil Nadu-625 002. [Pan: Aabtg2556L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.Akash, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, Cit

For Appellant: Shri G.Akash, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

regards ITA No.336 the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has informed that the Ld.PCIT(Exemption) has dismissed its appeal without according due opportunity of being heard and by merely relying upon technicalities. Thus, the assessee has submitted that the rejection of its application u/s 80G(5) (iii) is erroneous ... order of the Ld.PCIT(E ) and direct him to readjudicate the assessee’s application for grnat of registration u/s 80G after giving due opportunity of being heard and by passing a speaking order, in accordance with law. The assessee shall comply with all the notices of the PCIT

Deen Dayal Medical and Educational Trust, Thiruvallur vs. JCIT (OSD), Central Circle-2(3), Chennai

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

ITA 276/CHNY/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.276/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2010-11 Deen Dayal Medical & Educational Joint Commissioner Of Income Trust, Tax(Osd), No.61, Dd Nagar, Central Circle-2(3), Kunnavalam Post, Chennai. Thiruvallur-631 210. [Pan: Aaatd2757M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.S.Sridhar, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 11Section 12A

PCIT passed u/s.12AA(3) of the Act cancelling registration and remand the matter back to his file for fresh adjudication after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard. Needless to say that the assessee will cooperate in the proceedings to be initiated by the PCIT for registration/cancellation u/s.12AA ... relevant documents and will explain its case. The PCIT will accordingly examine the details and then pass a speaking order after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee….” 5.0 Thus, we have noted that in the present case the Ld.AO has made additions by denying the exemptions

Shirdisai Brothers Charitable Trust, Coimbatore vs. ACIT Exemptions, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1481/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1481/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr.G.Sudhakar, Advocate(Virtual)For Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT

outset, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order without giving it due opportunity of being heard. As regards the merits of the case, it was submitted that it had filed Form-12A however the CPC ignored the same to conclude that ... aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and direct him to readjudicate the matter afresh in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of being heard and by passing a speaking order. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Weewinnn Tex Processors (India) Pvt. Ltd., Erode vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Erode

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

ITA 1476/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1476/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2016-17

For Appellant: Mr.Bhupendran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT

file of Ld.CIT(A) for fresh readjudication in the light of orders of NCLT (supra). While doing so, he shall give due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Page

Ganapathi Seetharam Hegde, Karnataka vs. Addl/JCIT (A)-1, Chennai

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

ITA 1446/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1446/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr.Bhragu.K.R, C.AFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT

readjudication de novo. The orders of lower authorities is set aside and the Ld.AO is directed to pass another order after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to make compliance to the statutory notices issued by the Revenue

Chadrasekaran, Tirupur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Tirupur

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

ITA 1439/CHNY/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1439/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2007-08

For Appellant: Mr.Bhupendran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 246

therefore direct the Ld.CIT(A) to readjudicate the matter afresh by passing a speaking order, after condoning the delay, and by giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall be bounden to comply to all the statutory notices. Accordingly all the grounds of appeal raised

Raghu Badrachalam, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer Non Corp Ward 10(1) Chennai, Chennai

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

ITA 1435/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1435/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr.Bharath Janarthan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT

assessee submitted that the Ld.First Appellate Authority has also confirmed the addition by passing an ex-parte order without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard. It was accordingly pleaded that in the interest of justice the matter may be restored back to the file of Ld.AO for readjudication ... placed upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TIN box 249 ITR 216. The Ld. AO shall give opportunities of being heard to the assesse and it shall be bounden upon the assesse to comply with the notices issued

Parappattu P A C C S Ltd Y 58, Kanyakumari vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 Nagercoil, Nagercoil

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 141/CHNY/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.141/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2019-20 Parappattu Paccs Ltd Y 58, The Income Tax Officer, No.11-65/3, Alvaar Nagar, Ward-1, Manavalakurichi S.O, Nagercoil. Kalkulam, Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu-629 252. [Pan : Aabtp9691H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.M.Karunandham, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.M.Karunandham, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 69ASection 80ASection 80P

that both the lower authorities viz the Ld.AO and the Ld.CIT(A) have passed ex-parte orders depriving the assessee of a fair opportunity of being heard. As regards the issue of unexplained cash deposits, it was submitted that the appellant assessee was facing technical challenges in uploading electronically, before

Subbiah Subramani Venkatesh, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-6(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1316/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1316/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Subbiah Subramani Venkatesh, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Old No. 157, New No. 14, Non Corporate Ward 6(1), Sanjeevarayan Koil Street, West Chennai. Mambalam, Chennai 600 021. [Pan:Avups4151M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Hitesh, Advocate For Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh, Advocate for Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

prayed that the matter may be remanded to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication by affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. The ld. DR Ms. V. Supraja, Addl. CIT opposed the same and drew our attention to para 4.1of the assessment

Lakshmanan, Karthik vs. Assistant Commissioner, Salem

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

ITA 1309/CHNY/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1309/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2023-24 Lakshmanan Karthik, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 5-82/Na, South Veethi, Income Tax, Thammampatty Main Road, Ward 1 Attur T.K., Salem 636 107. Salem. [Pan:Dpspk6889B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Subhashini Ganapathy, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.02.2024 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-6, Kolkata For The Assessment Year 2023-24. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 6 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit As Well As Medical Reports, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Assessee Are 2

For Appellant: Ms. Subhashini Ganapathy, CAFor Respondent: Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.CIT
Section 143(1)Section 40

assessee for taxation or not, if offered, the addition made in the hands of the assessee is not maintainable by affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee to furnish evidence to substantiate his claim. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

M/S. Trac Media Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Corp. Circle-20(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 1306/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1305/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1306/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2016-17 M/S.Trac Media Pvt Ltd., Assistant Commissioner Of No.35, 3Rd Main Road, Income Tax, Kalaimagal Nagar, Corporate Circle-20(1), Ekkattuthangal, Chennai. Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aadct4184G] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri D.Anand, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, Cit(Virtual) & Ms.V.Supraja, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri D.Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CIT(Virtual) &
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 56

outset the Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that both the lower authorities have passed ex-parte orders without giving due opportunity of being heard. The assessee was stated to be engaged in the business of running a TV Channel. It was submitted that the Ld.AO had passed the assessment order ... Apex Court in the case of TIN box 249 ITR 216. The Ld. AO Page - 4 - of 8 ITA Nos.1305 & 1306/Chny/2025 shall give opportunities of being heard to the assesse and it shall be bounden upon the assesse to comply with the notices issued