“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

Swayamshree Micro Credit Services, Bhubaneswar vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 542/CTK/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajeshh Kuamrassessment Year : 2014-15 Swayamshree Micro Credit Vs. Dcit (Exemption), Bhubaneswar Services 751007 Plot No 549/2126, Patia. Bhubaneswar, 751024 Pan/Gir No. Aaics 1120 N (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bibekananda Mohanty , Advoate 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 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 17/08/2023 In Appeal No. Cit(A), Bhhubaneswar-3/10370/2016-17 Passed For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appeal Is Delayed By 18 Days Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Stating That Due To Health Problem Of The Chief

For Appellant: Shri Bibekananda Mohanty , AdvoateFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Ku MIshra, Sr. DR

matter back to the file of the ld CIT(A) with a direction to provide P a g e 2 | 3 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

Parner Vipassana Samiti, Ahmednagar vs. CIT (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 1379/PUN/2024[2024-25]Status: HeardITAT Pune01 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil MuthaFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

registration granted under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should not be cancelled. The assessee was also given opportunity of being heard vide the said notice. The assessee was specifically informed that in the event of failure to comply by the due date, the application shall be liable ... assessee through e-portal and email. However, the assessee neither submitted explanation to the show cause notice till date nor availed the opportunity of being heard. 3. Since, the assessee has not furnished any explanation to the discrepancies communicated to it, it is presumed that the assessee has nothing

Ashok Diwan & Sons, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 29(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 928/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri George Mathanashok Diwan & Sons, Vs Ito Ward-29(1), Kolkata 92/1, Alipore Road, Diwan House, Kolkata Pan No. :Aacha 0995 E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Amit Agarwal, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01/07/2025

For Appellant: Shri Amit Agarwal, 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 the ld.AO ... interest of justice, we restore the issues to the file of Id. AO for readjudicating the issues afresh after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard, subject to a payment of cost of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twentyfive Thousand only) by the assessee to the Legal Aid Services, 3rd Floor

Lowa Union Cooperative Agriculture Credit Society Limited, Purba Bardhaman vs. ITO, Circle 2, Durgapur

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

ITA 926/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Shri Shyamlal Das Bandhopadhyay, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. DR

that the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) in both the appeals 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.CIT ... issues in both the appeals to the file of Id. CIT(A) for readjudicating the issues afresh after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard, subject to a payment of cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each by the assessee to the Legal Aid Services, 3rd Floor

Lowa Union Cooperative Agriculture Credit Society Limited, Purba Bardhaman vs. ITO, Circle 2, Durgapur

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

ITA 925/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Shri Shyamlal Das Bandhopadhyay, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. DR

Indarsen Shamlal Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Circle 1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 699/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Ayush Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mandal, DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250

that the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is an ex parte order without giving suffi- cient 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. CIT(A), so that ... justice, we restore the issues to the file of Id. CIT(A) for re-adjudicating the issues afresh after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard, subject to a payment of cost of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) by the assessee to the Legal Aid Services, 3rd Floor

Soma Banerjee, Kolkata vs. I.T.O. Ward 30(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 632/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Souvik Guha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. DR

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

Imax Project India Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 11(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 425/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mandal, DR

Section 250

that the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is an ex-parte order without giving suffi- cient 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. CIT(A), so that ... justice, we restore the issues to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudicating the issues afresh after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard, subject to a payment of cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) by the assessee to the Legal Aid Services, 3rd Floor

Harsh Comtrade Pvt Ltd, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 225/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.225/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Harsh Comtrade Private Limited, Vs Ito, Ward-5(4), Kolkata 1/A, Stuti Apartment, Near Ashok Panhouse, City Light, Surat, Gujarat Pan No. :Aabcg 8847 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : Shri Mehul Shah, Ar नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01/07/2025 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 28.12.2023, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059161646(1) For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. Shri Mehul Shah, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Ld.Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Submitted That He Has Filed Written Submissions Before The Tribunal Which Has Been Placed In The Paper Book At Pages 90 To 104 Which Reads As Follows :- Before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata - 'Smc' Bench In The Case Of Harsh Comtrade Pvt. Ltd Sub: Written Submission For A.Y. 2012-13 Ref: Assessee'S Appeal No. 225/Kol/2024 Date Of Hearing: 21.08.2024 May It Please To Your Honour 1. In This Case, The Case Is Re-Opened On The Basis Of Reasons For Reopening Recorded On 23.03.2018. The Same Is Reproduced

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

Section 148

Income Tax Act, 1961 clearly states that -"The assessee shall, except where the assessment is made under section 144, be given an opportunity of being heard in respect of any material gathered on the basis of any inquiry under sub-section (2) or any audit under sub-section

C P Metaliks Private Limited, G.T. Road Bhiringee vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Durgapur

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1482/KOL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mandal, DR

Section 250Section 68

remit the matter to pass the assessment order de novo after allowing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and thereaf- ter pass an order in accordance with law. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 06. In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bajaj Electricals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 2(1), Mumbai

ITA 111/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 115Section 14ASection 250

pertaining to AY 2009-10 also. The AO is further directed to decide the issue in accordance with law after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is ordered accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed statistical purposes. Disallowance of Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP) Expenditure – Ground ... claim of the assessee and allow the same in accordance with law. Needless to say that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Disallowance of prior period expenditure – Ground No.4 27. The AO has disallowed

Bajaj Electricals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 2(1), Mumbai

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 110/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan-CIT-DR &

Section 115Section 14ASection 250

pertaining to AY 2009-10 also. The AO is further directed to decide the issue in accordance with law after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is ordered accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed statistical purposes. 17 ITA 4172/M/13-5749-5750/M/15-110- 111/M/16 Bajaj Electricals Limited Disallowance ... same in accordance with law. 23 ITA 4172/M/13-5749-5750/M/15-110- 111/M/16 Bajaj Electricals Limited Needless to say that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Disallowance of prior period expenditure – Ground No.4 27. The AO has disallowed

DCIT 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Electricals Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5750/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh S. Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan-CIT-DR &

Section 115Section 14ASection 250

pertaining to AY 2009-10 also. The AO is further directed to decide the issue in accordance with law after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is ordered accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed statistical purposes. 17 ITA 4172/M/13-5749-5750/M/15-110- 111/M/16 Bajaj Electricals Limited Disallowance ... same in accordance with law. 22 ITA 4172/M/13-5749-5750/M/15-110- 111/M/16 Bajaj Electricals Limited Needless to say that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Disallowance of prior period expenditure – Ground No.4 27. The AO has disallowed

DCIT 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Electricals Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5749/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan-CIT-DR &

Section 115Section 14ASection 250

pertaining to AY 2009-10 also. The AO is further directed to decide the issue in accordance with law after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is ordered accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed statistical purposes. 17 ITA 4172/M/13-5749-5750/M/15-110- 111/M/16 Bajaj Electricals Limited Disallowance ... same in accordance with law. 23 ITA 4172/M/13-5749-5750/M/15-110- 111/M/16 Bajaj Electricals Limited Needless to say that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Disallowance of prior period expenditure – Ground No.4 27. The AO has disallowed

Bajaj Electricals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 2(1), Mumbai

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4172/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan-CIT-DR &

Section 115Section 14ASection 250

pertaining to AY 2009-10 also. The AO is further directed to decide the issue in accordance with law after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is ordered accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed statistical purposes. 17 ITA 4172/M/13-5749-5750/M/15-110- 111/M/16 Bajaj Electricals Limited Disallowance ... same in accordance with law. 23 ITA 4172/M/13-5749-5750/M/15-110- 111/M/16 Bajaj Electricals Limited Needless to say that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Disallowance of prior period expenditure – Ground No.4 27. The AO has disallowed

Aseem Takyar, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Gurgaon

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

ITA 510/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanaseem Takyar, Vs. Ito, Ward 1 (5), 144, Phase 1, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon. Gurgaon – 122 016 (Haryana). (Pan : Aahpt9424A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bhimanshu Kansal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.07.2025 Date Of Order : 01.07.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 08.09.2023 For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, It Is Brought To Our Notice That The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 147/144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) Due To Non-Cooperation Of The Assessee. It Is Brought To Our Notice That Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Before The Ld. Cit (A) & Even Before Ld. Cit

For Appellant: Shri Bhimanshu Kansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 147

remit this issue to the file of AO. It is directed to AO to decide the issue on merit after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same time, we direct the assessee to cooperate with the lower authorities also. 4. In the result, the appeal

Anshul Gupta & Sons HUF, Delhi vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-46(4), Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 5556/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Delhi01 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraanshul Gupta & Sons Huf Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3661, Main Road, Chawri 46 (4), Bazar, Delhi-110006 Drum Shape Building, I. P. Pan: Aaacl8230E Estate, New Delhi Appellant Respondent

been passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in violation of principals of natural justice wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has not provided opportunity of being heard to the Assessee, therefore, sought for remanding the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). 2 Anshul Gupta & Sons ... operate with the appellate proceedings. The Ld. CIT(A) is also directed to pass order afresh in accordance with law, by providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 5. In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court

Gcc Infra, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-61(1), Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4747/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2018-19 Vs. Acit, Gcc Infra, B2/201, Safdarjung Enclave, Circle-61(1), New Delhi Delhi Pan: Aapfg4216R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Sandeep Jain, Ca Department By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 80J

learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming addition of Rs 9,34,148.00 without giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee and violating principles of Natural Justice. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds

ACIT, Circle-28(1) -New Delhi, New Delhi vs. Deepak Kumar Rajgarhia, Delhi

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

ITA 3316/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanacit, Circle 28 (1), Vs. Deepak Kumar Rajgarhia, New Delhi. K-199 A, Asola Road, Fatehpur Beri, Delhi – 110 074. (Pan : Aaopr7257C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pradeep Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.07.2025 Date Of Order : 01.07.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 20.05.2024 For Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Dr Of The Revenue Submitted That The Assessee Has Submitted Certain Documents Before The Ld. Cit (A) & Ld. Cit (A) Considered The Same For Giving Relief To The Assessee Without Giving Proper

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

file of AO to verify the additional evidences submitted by the assessee and verify the same as per law, after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same time, we direct the assessee to cooperate with the lower authorities also. 4. In the result, the appeal

Kesharwani Shiksha Samiti, Jabalpur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Excemption), Bhopal

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

ITA 3/JAB/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH “DB”, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI, NIKHIL CHOUDHARY