“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

Sree Traders, South Twenty Four Parganas vs. DCIT, Circle 26(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 778/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jul 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Smt. Pampa Ray, JCIT-Sr.DR

submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without providing any 2 sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It was the prayer that the matter may be restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue ... restoring the issues in the appeal to the file of ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating afresh after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee shall cooperate in the readjudication proceeding before the ld. CIT(A) positively. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Saluja Tyres, Birbhum vs. ITO, Ward 3(3), Suri, Birbhum

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

ITA 773/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.773/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Saluja Tyres, Vs Ito, Ward-3(3), Suri C/O M/S Salarpuria Jajodia & Co. 7, C.R. Avenue, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata Pan No. : Acyfs 6933 J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, Fca नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Pampa Ray, Jcit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 10.08.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, Ld.Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Smt. Pampa Ray, Ld. Sr.Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. During The Course Of Hearing, It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Without Providing Any Sufficient Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee. It Was Also Submitted That There Was A Delay Of 628 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A), Which May Kindly Be Condoned. It Was The Prayer That The Matter May Be Restored To The File Of Ld. Ao To Decide The Issue Involved In The Appeal Afresh So That The Assessee Could Be Able To Produce All The Evidence To Substantiate Its Claim.

For Respondent: Smt. Pampa Ray, JCIT-Sr.DR

submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without providing any sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It was also submitted that there was a delay of 628 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A), which ... restoring the issues in the appeal to the file of ld. AO for adjudicating afresh after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee shall cooperate in the readjudication proceeding before the AO positively. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Ashok Kumar Chaurasia, Darjeeling vs. DCIT, Circle 3(1), Siligurii

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

ITA 741/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Smt. Pampa Ray, JCIT-Sr.DR

submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without providing any 2 sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It was the prayer that the matter may be restored to the file of ld. AO to decide the issue involved ... restoring the issues in the appeal to the file of ld. AO for adjudicating afresh after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. However, looking to the non-cooperation of the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings even after issuance of notices to the assessee, I impose

Jasimuddin Mir, Birbhum vs. ITO, Ward 3(2), Suri, Birbhum

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

ITA 740/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Smt. Pampa Ray, JCIT-Sr.DR

Abdul Mannan, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 32(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 738/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Smt. Pampa Ray, JCIT-Sr.DR

submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without providing any sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It was the prayer that 2 the matter may be restored to the file of ld. AO to decide the issue involved ... restoring the issues in the appeal to the file of ld. AO for adjudicating afresh after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. However, looking to the non-cooperation of the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings even after issuance of notices to the assessee, I impose

M/S. Rangolee Share House Pvt. Ltd., Varanasi vs. ITO, Ward 12(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 715/KOL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.715/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) M/S Rangolee Share House Pvt. Ltd Vs Ito-12(1), Kolkata C-27/273C-13, 1St Floor, Das Nagar, Maldahia, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh Pan No. : Aaccr 6658 Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Ar नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Pampa Ray, Jcit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 29.07.2023 For The Assessment Year 2011-2012. 2. Shri Manoj Kataruka, Ld.Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Smt. Pampa Ray, Ld. Sr.Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. During The Course Of Hearing, It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Without Providing Any Sufficient Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee. It Was The Prayer That The Matter May Be Restored To The File Of Ld. Ao To Decide The Issue Involved In The Appeal Afresh So That The Assessee Could Be Able To Produce All The Evidence To Substantiate Its Claim. 5. In Reply, Ld Cit-Dr Vehemently Supported The Orders Of The Assessing Officer & Ld. Cit(A).

For Respondent: Smt. Pampa Ray, JCIT-Sr.DR

submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without providing any sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It was the prayer that the matter may be restored to the file of ld. AO to decide the issue involved ... restoring the issues in the appeal to the file of ld. AO for adjudicating afresh after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. However, looking to the non-cooperation of the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings even after issuance of notices to the assessee, I impose

Joydeb Saha, West Medinipur vs. ITO, Ward 38(4), Midnapur

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

ITA 687/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.687/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Joydeb Saha Vs Ito, Ward-38(4), Midnapur C/O Manoranjan Saha Burdge Town Fokir Kuy, Paschim Medinipur, West Medinipur, Wb-721101 Pan No. : Buips 9294 R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. : Shri Girdhar Dhelia, Ar नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Smt. Pampa Ray, Jcit-Sr.Dr राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt. Pampa Ray, JCIT-Sr.DR

submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without providing any 2 sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It was the prayer that the matter may be restored to the file of ld. AO to decide the issue involved ... restoring the issues in the appeal to the file of ld. CIT(A) for readjudication on merits after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. Liberty is granted to assessee to produce evidence before the Assessing Officer to substantiate his case. The assessee shall cooperate in the readjudication proceeding

Kishore Chakraborty, Malda vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Malda

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

ITA 670/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Smt. Pampa Ray, JCIT-Sr.DR

submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without providing any sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It was the prayer that 2 the matter may be restored to the file of ld. AO to decide the issue involved ... restoring the issues in the appeal to the file of ld. AO for adjudicating afresh after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. However, looking to the non-cooperation of the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings as well as in the assessment proceedings, I impose a cost

Ashirbad Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 655/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Smt. Pampa Ray, JCIT-Sr.DR

submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without providing any 2 sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It was the prayer that the matter may be restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue ... restoring the issues in the appeal to the file of ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating afresh after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. However, looking to the non-cooperation of the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings even after issuance of notices to the assessee, I impose

Hifill Tracon Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-4(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 352/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Pampa Ray, JCIT-Sr.DR

Section 148

issues in both the appeals to the file of ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating the issue on merits after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee shall cooperate in the readjudication proceeding before the ld. CIT(A) positively. 6. In the result, both appeals of the assessee

Hifill Tracon Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-4(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 351/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Pampa Ray, JCIT-Sr.DR

Section 148

Sajal Impex Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 12(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 265/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishraay 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Sajal Impex Pvt. Ltd. Ward 12(1), 4, Synagogue Street, Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Kolkata-700001, West Bengal P-7, Chowringhee Square, (Pan: Aahcs5794D) Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Miraz D Shah, Ar Respondent By : Shri S.B. Chakraborty, Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.07.2025 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit(A)”) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Ay 2012-13 Dated 28.11.2024. 02. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Un- Der:

For Appellant: Shri Miraz D Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborty, DR

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

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 to be heard to the Ld. AO as per rule

Jigar Shah, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 33(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 103/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings. This being so, in the interest of justice, I grant the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate its claim before the Id. Assessing Officer by restoring the issues in the appeal to the file of Id. AO for adjudicating afresh after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. However, looking to the non-cooperation of the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings even after issuance of notices to t

For Appellant: Smt. Pampa Ray, Sr.DR

submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without providing any sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It was the prayer that the matter may be restored to the file of ld. AO to decide the issue involved ... Assessing Officer by restoring the issues in the appeal to the file of ld. AO for adjudicating afresh after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. However, looking to the non-cooperation of the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings even after issuance of notices to the assessee

S 355 Tharamangalam Paccs, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem

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

ITA 860/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar (Erode)For Respondent: Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

PACCS :: 5 :: "We will straightaway agree with the assessee's submission that the Income-tax Officer had not given to the assessee proper opportunity of being heard." 2. That the assessee could have placed evidence before the first appellate authority or before the Tribunal is really of no consequence ... aside the order of assessment and remand the matter to the assessing authority for fresh assessment after giving to the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard. 3. Two questions were placed before the High Court, of which the second question is not pressed. The first question reads thus

Vinjimur Chellappan Ram, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-17(1), Chennai

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

ITA 690/CHNY/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 690/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Vinjimur Chellappan Ram, Deputy Commissioner Of Income No.78, “Sri Chakram” Vs. Tax, Ramachandran Street, Non Corporate Circle 17(1), Jafferkhanpet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 083. [Pan: Ajqpr-2586-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. K. Srinivasan, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Pryati Sharma, JCIT

Section 143Section 250

Mumbai, for the assessment year 2009-10, dated 10.01.2025. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as follows: Ground No. 1-The Opportunity of being heard was not given to your Appellant. 1. Your Appellant is agitating only one issue. Your Appellant was not given an opportunity of being ... response to the Notice Vide Din ITBA/APL/F/APL_1/2024-25/1071791712 (1) dated 02/012025 Taking on record the written submissions of appellant is not equal to giving Opportunity of being heard vide case law below:- Sukhvinder pal Singh Vs. ITO ITA NO, 7463/DEL/2019 [ITAT, Delhi] "It is well settled that the mere making available

Jurimatrix Services India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(3)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 92/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri K.R. Girish, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R

Section 10ASection 115JSection 144Section 156Section 234ASection 234BSection 263Section 270A

facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld. AO has erred in not providing opportunity of being heard and thereby ignoring relevant details and relying on surmises, suppositions and conjectures in support of additions. 1. 4. The Ld. AO erred in not providing sufficient

M/S Hussain Multispeciality Hospital, Bijapur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vijayapur

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

ITA 2387/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 250Section 40

dispute to the file of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law. Needless to say, a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the proceedings and should not take unnecessary adjournments

Keshvi Developers Pvt Ltd, Goregaon East vs. DCIT, Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai, Bkc, Bandra

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 640/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhrikeshvi Developers Pvt Ltd Vs Dcit, Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai 7, Saket Shopping Centre Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Mumbai-400 Station Road, Goregaon, 051 Mumbai-400 062 Pan: Aacck7090D Applicant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Surji ChhedaFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (SR.DR.)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 68

have fairly accepted the observations of the Bench. Needless to say, the assessee shall be granted a reasonable opportunity of being heard during the set- aside proceedings. 4 ITA 640/Mum /2025 Keshvi Developers Pvt Ltd 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.640/Mum/2025 is allowed

Shree Dadar Digamer Jain Mumuksho Mandal, Mumbai vs. CIT(Exemption) Ward 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2446/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2023-24 Shri Dadar Digamber Jain The Cit (Exemption), Mumukshu Mandal, Ward-2(3), 271/293, 271/293, Vs. Mumbai. N.C. Kelkar Road, Opp: Shivaji Park, P.O. Dadar (West) Mumbai-400028. Pan : Aacts8044A (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri A.N. Shah For Revenue : Shri Annavaram Kosuri Date Of Hearing : 11-06-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15-07-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld.Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 05-03-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2023-24, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri A.N. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri

Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 11(3)(c)Section 143(1)

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in passing order without giving adequate opportunity of being heard through Video conferencing which is contrary to provisions of law and natural justice. The order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice ... deleted. We therefore set aside the order of CIT(Appeals) and remand this issue for fresh consideration by the AO, after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 13. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.” 21. In light

Rajiv Trust, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 161/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 111ASection 12ASection 143(1)Section 2Section 234CSection 254(1)

under section 143(1) of the Act. 1.2It is submitted that the adjustment has been made without affording to the appellant any opportunity of being heard and the same is in gross violation of ITA Nos. 160 & 161/Mum/2025 Rajiv Trust principles of natural justice as well as the provisions