← 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

Gurvir Motor Private Limited, Patiala vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Patiala

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1250/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1250/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Gurvir Motor Private The Ito, बनाम Limited, Ward -4, 97, New Officers Colony, Patiala Vs. Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabcg9342B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, Adv. (Virtual) राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 01.07.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.07.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dt. 31.10.2024 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For A.Y. 2013-14. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:

For Appellant: Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, Adv. (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 263

Motor Private Limited, Patiala 3 then by Worthy CIT(A) deserves to be quashed since the same have been passed without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 8. That the appellant craves leave for any addition, deletion, or amendment in the grounds of appeal on or before

Shravan Seva Foundation, Vadodara vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 634/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jul 2025

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalshravan Seva Foundation, The Commissioner Of Vs. 18 Kishan Complex, Income Tax (Exemption), Opp. Yash Complex, Ahmedabad. Subhanpura, Vadodara-390023. [Pan :Abgcs8130 B] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Adjournment Application Filed Respondent By: Shri Alpesh Parmar, Cit. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03.07.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

For Appellant: Adjournment Application filedFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT. DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

erred in fact and in law in passing the order rejecting the application for registration u/s. 12A of the Act without giving a opportunity of being heard. 5. The Appellant reserves the right to add, alter, amend, modify, delete all or any of the grounds of appeal either partially

Pune Madhyamik Shikshak Sahkari Patapedhi Maryadit, Pune vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune 4, Pune

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

ITA 909/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Pune03 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A ShahFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

specific provision of section 80P(2)(d) r.w.s. section 80P (4) of the Act. 14. The Assessing Officer is directed to give adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing the fresh assessment order.” 7. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. PCIT, the assessee is in appeal

Shrikrushna Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. ITO Ward 10(1), Pune

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

ITA 454/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Pune03 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Shrikrushna Gramin Bigarsheti Ito, Ward 10(1), Pune Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Vs. Vadgaon Kashimbeg, Ambegaon, Pune – 410503 Pan: Aadas4001K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Abhay A Avchat Department By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 01-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Abhay A AvchatFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68Section 80P

restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to decide the issue after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per fact and law. The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC

Bhagwan Machindra Mahadik, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 14(5) Pune, Pune

ITA 1340/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jul 2025AY 2016-17
Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 69C

without discussing each and every ground and merits of the case and merely dismissed for non-compliance. Hence, ld.AR requested for one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Submission of Id.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) : 3. The ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer

Chinki Trexim Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 9(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 952/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Miraz D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)

issues in this appeal are restored to the file of Id. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the ld. CIT(A) in the readjudication proceedings, positively. 7. In the result, appeal

Jay Shree Tea & Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 4(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 896/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jul 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Monalisa Pal Mukherjee, JCIT
Section 14A

issues in both the appeals are restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. Liberty is granted to the assessee to raise additional grounds before the ld.CIT(A). 5. In the result, both appeals of the assessee

Jay Shree Tea & Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 4(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 895/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Monalisa Pal Mukherjee, JCIT
Section 14A

issues in both the appeals are restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. Liberty is granted to the assessee to raise additional grounds before the ld.CIT(A). 5. In the result, both appeals of the assessee

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -2(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Gd Reality Private Limited, Kolkata

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

ITA 622/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. CIT-Sr.DR
Section 133(6)

justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee is directed to produce such documents as called for by the 4 Assessing Officer to prove the transaction of the receipt

Jaynta Kumar Maitra, Sarengabad Budge Budge vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolkata

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

ITA 257/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Arka Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. DR

submission of the ld. AR that the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is an ex-parte order without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It was also submitted that the assessee may 2 ITANo.257/KOL/2025 be given one more opportunity to represent its case before ... justice, we restore the issues to the file of Id. AO for readjudicating the issues on merits after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the ld. Assessing Officer in the readjudication proceedings, positively. 7. In the result, appeal

Selwell Protein Food P. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 7(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2030/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jul 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George Mathan(नििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year : 2016-2017 Selwell Protein Food Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito,Ward-7(1), Kolkata C/O S.N.Ghosh & Associates Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata Pan No. :Aadcs 4697 K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 01.08.2024, Passed By The Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Ld. Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. It Was The Submission Of The Ld. Ar That Assessee Could Not Furnish The Details Before The Assessing Officer During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings. It Was The Submission That The Impugned Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Is An Ex-Parte Order Without Giving Sufficient Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee. It Was Also Submitted That The Assessee May Be Given One More Opportunity To Represent Its Case Before The Ld. Ao, So That The Assessee Could Be Able To Provide The Details To Substantiate Its Case For The Year Under Consideration Before The Ld.Ao.

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. DR

proceedings. It was the submission that the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is an ex-parte order without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It was also submitted that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to represent its case before ... justice, we restore the issues to the file of Id. AO for readjudicating the issues on merits after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the ld. Assessing Officer in the readjudication proceedings, positively. 6. In the result, appeal

Gouri Shankar Goyal, Siliguri vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 1, Siliguri

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

ITA 1748/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri George Mathangouri Shankar Goyal Vs Acit, Circle-1, Siliguri C/O Omprakash Agarwal(Goyal) Agrasen Road, Khalpara, Siliguri-734005 Pan No. :Adgpg 0529 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Girdhar Dhelia, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/07/2025

For Appellant: Shri Girdhar Dhelia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

Assessing Officer, this issue on merits is restored to the file of Assessing Officer for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. 7 ITANo.1748/KOL/2024 17. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court

Anil Srichand Rohra, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Kalyan

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

ITA 3274/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailanil Srichand Rohra, Shop 743, Pawai Chowk, Thaily Bazar, Ulhasnagar, ............... Appellant Pan : Aegpr7262H V/S Ito, Ward – 2(1), ……………… Respondent Kalyan

For Appellant: Shri Sunil TalrejaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

which it is prayed may be considered without prejudice to one another. 2 "1. The First Appellate Authority" failed to provide the reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant by serving notices to email address does not belonging to the appellant, resulting in violation of principles of natural justice

Mr. Anil Narpatlal Gandhi, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 1921/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 147Section 254(1)Section 68

above ground, in the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in not granting proper, sufficient and fair opportunity of being heard to the Appellant while passing the appellate order. 3. EX-PARTE ORDER 3.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in passing the order

Mr. Anil Narpatlal Gandhi, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward -19(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 1920/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 147Section 254(1)Section 68

above ground, in the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in not granting proper, sufficient and fair opportunity of being heard to the Appellant while passing the appellate order. 3. EX-PARTE ORDER 3.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in passing the order

Leela Krishnan Nair Foundation, Mumbai vs. CIT(Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 1353/MUM/2025[N.A ]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n&\nSHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER\nΙ.Τ.Α. No. 1353/Mum/2025\nLeela Krishnan Nair Foundation\n1, Leela Baug, Andheri Kurla Road\nAndheri East, J.B. Nagar S.O.\nMumbai - 400059\n[PAN: AAECL7036L]\nअपीलार्थी/ (Appellant)\nCIT (Exemptions), Mumbai\nVs\nप्रत्यर्थी/ (Respondent)\nAssessee by:\nMs. Kinjal Bhuta, A/R\nRevenue by :\nShri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT D/R\nसुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing\n: 01/07/2025\nघोषणा की त

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal Bhuta, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT D/R
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

erred in rejecting the application for final registration u/s. 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without granting any opportunity to be heard in this matter as required under the second proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act. That not giving opportunity is against the principle of natural ... wrong section code inadvertently while filing the application for final registration in Form 10AB. Further, we notice that assessee did not have the opportunity of being heard before Id. CITE) due to incorrect course of action advised, which otherwise assessee might have explained the facts to avoid the impugned rejection

Vivek Dhariwal, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-4(1), Raipur

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

ITA 397/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 250Section 250(4)Section 69A

matter came up before the ITAT, it had failed to address the infirmity regarding the fact that the assessee was not afforded proper opportunity of being heard and the matter was dismissed ex-parte by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC which amounted to violation of principles of natural justice ... part of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In light of such decision, the petitioner ought to have been granted an opportunity of being heard which, partakes the characteristic of the fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 11. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay

Bishwnath Jha, Balangir vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur

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

ITA 278/CTK/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14 Biswanath Jha, Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Gandhinagarpara, Balangir- Sambalpur 767001 Pan/Gir No. Abtpj 6411 C (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Adv Revenue By : Shri Prateek Kr Mishra, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 02 /07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02/07/2025 O R D E R Per Bench The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nafc), New Delhi Nfac), Delhi Dated 11/01/2024 In Appeal No. Cit(A), Sambalpur/10177/2016-17 Passed For Assessment Year 2013- 14. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 397 Days. The Assessee Has Filed 2. Condonation Petition Dated 2.5.2025 Supported By An Affidavit Stating That The Order Passed By The Ld Cit(A), Nfac Dated 11.1.2024 & The Appeal P A G E 1 | 4 Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Kr Mishra, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

matter back to his file P a g e 3 | 4 Assessment Year : 2013-14 with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, we also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before

Baruan Service Co Operative Society Limited, Jajpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jajpur Ward, Jajpur

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

ITA 277/CTK/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri N.R.Biswal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kr Chakraborty, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on merit by considering the evidences and materials on record and after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with law. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, appeal

Sanjib Kumar Mohapatra, Dhenkanal vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhenkanal Ward, Dhenkanal

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

ITA 233/CTK/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumar Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sanjib Kumar Mohapatra Vs. Ito, Dhenkanal Ward, Gandhi Mandir Road, Gandhi Dhenkanal Mandir Road, Dhenkanal, 759001 Pan/Gir No. Adepm 1034 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chitrasen Parida, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prateek Kr Mishra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02 /07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02 /07/2025 O R D E R Per Bench The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nafc), New Delhi Nfac), Delhi Dated 07/03/2025 In Appeal No.Nfac/2017-18/10085214 Passed For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 28.8.2018 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.5,79,620/-, Which Was Processed U/S.143(1) Of The Act. During The Course Of P A G E 1 | 4 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Chitrasen parida, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Kr Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

principle of natural justice, and remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, we also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before