“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

Rajinder Kumar Modi, HUF, Howrah vs. I.T.O., Ward - 47(5), Kolkata

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

ITA 521/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.521/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Rajinder Kumar Modi Huf Vs Ito, Ward-47(5), Kolkata C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 Pan No. :Aajhr 2810 Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit-Sr.Dr राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/07/2025 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 26.10.2023, Passed For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. Shri Siddharth Agrawal, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Ld.Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 437 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed Application Supported With An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons Which Are Not Found To Be False, Therefore, The Delay Of 437 Days In Filing The Appeal Stands Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 4. It Was The Submission Of The Ld. Ar That The Ld. Cit(A) Without Affording Sufficient Opportunity Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee. It Was Also Submitted That The Assessee May Be Given One More Opportunity

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate

justice, we restore the issues to the file of Id.CIT(A) 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. CIT (A) in the readjudication proceedings, positively. 7. In the result, appeal

A.H.Forex Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Assessing Officer, Kolkata

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

ITA 504/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.504/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Ah Forex Private Limited Vs Ito Ward-8(1), Kolkata 104, Collin Street, Kolkata Pan No. :Aaica 1909 P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri K.S.Rai, Ca : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit-Sr.Dr राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/07/2025

For Appellant: Shri K.S.Rai, CA

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. AO in the readjudication proceedings, positively. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee

Gaffar Ali Molla, Sandeshkhali vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 49 (1), Kolkata

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

ITA 356/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. CIT-Sr.DR

Vincent (India) Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 8(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1267/KOL/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1267/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Vincent (India) Limited, Vs Ito, Ward-8(2), Kolkata 113, Poddar Point, 7Th Floor, Park Street, Kolkata Pan No. :Aaacv 7066 L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. : Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit-Sr.Dr राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/07/2025

For Appellant: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. CIT-Sr.DR

Section 148

Commercial Limited, the issues in this appeal now stand restored to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee to substantiate its case before the Assessing Officer. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee partly allowed for statistical

Panjurajan Ganesan, Sivakasi vs. DCIT, CC - 2, Madurai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 278/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.278/Chny/2020 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Panjurajan Ganesan Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.74A, Velayutham Road, Corporate Circle-2, Sivakasi, Madurai. Tamil Nadu-626 123. [Pan:Abypg3315R] (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. D. Anand, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. G. Latchana, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.07.2025

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. G. Latchana, Addl.CIT

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

called ambiguous wording in the notice [has not] impaired or prejudiced the right of the assessee to a reasonable opportunity of being heard". It went onto observe that for sustaining the plea of natural justice on the ground of absence of opportunity, "it has to be established that prejudice

Malathi Gopal Pathange, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 773/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S Darshan Bothra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate for Standing

Section 250(1)

several grounds of appeal, but the main issue is whether the ld. CIT(A) was right in passing the order without providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 3. During the hearing, the learned AR for the assessee submitted that ... present her case. He emphasized that as per section 250(1) of the Act, it is mandatory to provide the assessee an opportunity to be heard before passing any order. Accordingly, he prayed that the matter be restored to the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving due opportunity

Ram Kumar Tallah, Bengaluru vs. ITO Ward 5(3)(5) Bangalore, Bengaluru

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

ITA 733/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeys.A No. 43/Bang/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. Swathi Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate for Standing

Section 147Section 69A

Accordingly, we direct to the JAO(jurisdictional Assessing Officer) to verify the withdrawals and decide the issue as per law after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We further directed to the JAO that if he finds that the assessee has not got any financial benefit from

Manasa Education Trust (R), Mandya vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Mandya

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 372/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Tharun Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT

Section 144Section 250(6)Section 253(5)

Department. As a result, the appeal was completed ex-parte by the ld. CIT-A, dismissing the same without providing the assessee any opportunity of being heard. 4. The assessee came to know about the adverse orders only in the last week of January 2025, after receiving a telephonic call

Deonar Bongiya Parishad, Mumbai vs. The CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

In the result, appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2955/MUM/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jul 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankardeonar Bongiyaparishad V/S. Commissioner Of Income Tax Kali Temple Premises, Near बनाम (Exemptions), Room No. 601, Sarnath Building, 6Th Floor, Cumballa Hill, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai Mtnl Te Building, Peddar –400094, Maharashtra Road, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai – 400026, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatd9840R Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Khinchi,ARFor Respondent: Shri Uma Shankar Prasad, (CIT DR)

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

that the matter be remanded back to him for de novo adjudication by while applying the principles of natural justice and affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Both the sides agreed to this proposition. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand it back

Anil Gala Navneet Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 22(1)(6), Mumbai

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

ITA 2951/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Praksh Kantanil Gala Navneet Trust Vs Income Tax Cpc, Bengaluru Navneet Bhavan, Bhavani Shankar Road, Nr. Shardashram Society, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400 028 Pan : Aada5826D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay ParikhFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe – (SR. DR.)

Section 143(1)Section 164Section 2Section 234Section 250

erred in not quashing the impugned intimation order passed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as no opportunity of being heard was provided to the Appellant before levying surcharge and additional interest. Ground No. 2: Incorrect levy of surcharge amounting to Rs.20,613/- 1. The learned

M/S. Arya Voyagers Private Limited (Now Merged With M/S. Arya Tankers Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2368/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 2368/Mum/2025

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr. D/R

impugned transactions. 9. The issue is restored to the file of the AO for fresh verification after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 2nd July

Satyam Diagnostic Centre, Jodhpur vs. Assessment Unit, NFAC / ITO, Ward-1(2), Jodhpur

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

ITA 631/JODH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

Section 131Section 144Section 147

Company vs. CIT reported in 249 ITR 216 in which their Lordships of Supreme Court of India observed as under: "Assessment - Opportunity of being heard - Setting aside of assessment - Assessment order must be made after the assessee has been given reasonable opportunity of setting out his case - Same not done ... pass de novo assessment after considering the written submission and evidence filed by the assessee during the fresh proceedings after granting sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Needless, to mention that assessee shall co-operate in de novo assessment proceedings. In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Barmer vs. Pushp Raj Bohra, Jalore

The appeal of the revenue is allowed, in the manner discussed as above

ITA 200/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, HonʼBle & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Bleito, Ward-1, Barmer. Vs. Pushp Raj Bohra, M-09, Shivaji Nagar, Jalore - 343001. Pan No. Aanpb4456C Assessee By Shri Goutam Chand Baid, C.A. Revenue By Smt. Runi Pal, Cit (D.R.) Date Of Hearing 29.04.2025. Date Of Pronouncement 01.03.2025. Order Per Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Id. National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac/Cit(A)], Delhi Dated 08.02.2024 In Respect Of Assessment Year: 2017-18 Where The Department Has Raised Following Grounds: 1. Whether The Id. Cit(A) Is Justified In Facts & Law In Directing To Treat The Income From The Sale Of Immovable Properties As Capital Gains Instead Of Business Income, By Ignoring The Fact That Assesse & His Business Concerns Are Engaged In The Business Of Property & Real Estate Development & Huge Expenses Of Rs. 8.72 Cr. Were Incurred By Assessee On Development Of Projects To Earn Profit. 2. Whether The Id. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Directing The Ao To Treat The Income From The Sale Of Immovable Properties As Income From Capital Gains Instead Of Business Income By Merely Following The Order Of Hon'Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54ESection 54F

decide genuineness of the claim of the expenditure amounting to Rs. 1,42,03,562/- made by the assessee after granting an adequate opportunity of being heard. 27. In the backdrop of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal of the revenue is allowed, in the manner discussed as above. Order pronounced

Jince Kurian, Sambalpur vs. The Income Tax Officer ITO, Ward 2(1), Sambalpur

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

ITA 98/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Jince Kurian Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Sambalpur Bishop House, C/O Associate Infra Developers Private Limited Ainthhapali, 768004 Pan/Gir No. Bvppk 7918 G (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K Miishra, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Prateek Ku. Mishra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01 /07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01 /07/2025 O R D E R Per Bench The Present Appeals Are 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 21/06/2024 In Appeal No. Cit(A), Sambalpur/10137/2018-19 Passed For Assessment Year 2016-17, Order Dated

For Appellant: Shri P.K Miishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Ku. Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 69A

principle of natural justice, and remit the matter back to the file of the AO 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

S.B. Combine, Cuttack vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Cuttack

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

ITA 42/CTK/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Ku. Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

issues in these appeals are restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) and readjudicate the issue afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, we also P a g e 3 | 4 ITA No.41/CTK/2025 Assessment Year :2015-16 hereby caution

S.B. Combine, Cuttack vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Cuttack

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

ITA 41/CTK/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Ku. Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

Siba Foundation, Cuttack vs. ITO Exemption, Cuttack

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

ITA 273/CTK/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Jul 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2025-26 Siba Foundation Vs. Ito, Exemption, Cuttack Somapur, P.S.- Kisan Nagar, Somapur, Cuttack- 754130 Pan/Gir No. Aawts 3027 R (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Natabar Panda, Adv Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kr Chakraborty, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 01 /07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/07/2025 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 (Exemption), Hyderabad Dated 18/03/2025 In Appeal No. Cit(Exmption),Hyd/2024-25/12Aa/13676 Passed For Assessment Year 2025-26. 2. Facts In Brief Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Charitable Trust Created Under The Indian Trust 1882 On 13Th July, 2018. The Appellant Trust Is Running A Senior Secondary School From Class-1 To 12 Under The Name

For Appellant: Shri Natabar Panda, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kr Chakraborty, CIT DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

interest of justice, we deem it proper to set aside the matter to the Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to allow another opportunity of being heard to the assessee and furnish the required P a g e 3 | 4 Assessment Year : 2025-26 documents for grant of registration

Dillip Kumar Sahoo, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO Ward-2(1), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 224/CTK/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16 Dillip Kumar Sahoo Vs. Ito, Ward-2 (1),Bhubaneswar Plot No 75, Punam Gate, Kunjapatna Sahi, Old Town 751002 Pan/Gir No. Btcps 3659 D (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K..Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Prateek Kr Mishra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/07/2025 O R D E R Per Bench The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Dated 17/03/2025 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nafc), New Delhi Nfac), Delhi In Appeal No.Nfac/2014-15/10055757 Passed For Assessment Year 2015- 16. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That The Ld Cit(A) Passed The Impugned Order Exparte. It Is Prayed That The Matter Be P A G E 1 | 3 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S.K..Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Kr Mishra, Sr. DR

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

Jince Kurian, Sambalpur vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-2(1), Sambalpur

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

ITA 129/CTK/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri P.K Miishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Ku. Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 69A

Madan Mohan Gupta, Chandan Bazar vs. Income Tax Officer, Charampa

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

ITA 106/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: S/ S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) Rl Reddy(Kz) & And Rajesh Kumarassessment Year :2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Digant Dash, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Kr. Mishra, Sr