“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

Sandeep Kumar Gautam, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward- 2(2)(3), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1469/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarsandeep Kumar Gautam, Vs. Ito, Ward 2(2)(3), Ghaziabad House No. 921, Mange Ram Jatan House, Ghaziabad (Pan: Ambpg5029J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, Adv. Respondent By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 25.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.06.2025 Order Per Shamim Yahya, Am : This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Nfac, Delhi On The Following Grounds:- 1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing An Exparte Order Without Considering That In This Case, There Was No Deliberate Attempt On The Part Of The Appellate To, Not To, Reply To The Notices Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 144

require to be remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) with the directions to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass a speaking order. Assesse is directed to fully cooperate with the ld. CIT(A) during the proceedings

Welcome Distilleries Private Limited, Chhattisgarh vs. DCIT, Central Circle-8, Delhi

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

ITA 1455/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarwelcome Distilleries Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-8, 2Nd Floor, Agrasen Chowk, Delhi, Bilaspur, Chhatisgarh-495001 E-2, Ara Centre, (Pan: Aaacw3875A) Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Vijay Kumar Singh, Adv. & Ms. Piyushi Singh, Adv. Respondent By : Ms. Monika Singh, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 25.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.06.2025 Order Per Shamim Yahya, Am : This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A), Delhi-25 On The Following Grounds:- 1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Impugned Order Dated 14.1.2025 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Under Section 250 Of The Act Is Illegal & Bad In Law. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Dismissing The Appeal In Limini Without Deciding The Appeal On Merits On The Basis Of Grounds Of Appeal As Well As Statement Of Facts Even If The Appeal Was To Be Decided Exparte. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Dismissing The Appeal Ex-Parte Ignoring The Fact That The Appellant / Assessee Had Duly Applied For Adjournment, Hence, The Order Of Dismissal Of Appeal For Non-Appearance Is Against The Principles Of Natural Justice.

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Kumar Singh, Adv. & Ms. Piyushi Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT(DR)

Section 250Section 80G

require to be remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) with the directions to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass a speaking order. Assesse is directed to file his written submissions, if any, in accordance with law, before

Malkeet Kaur, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 28(1), Civic Centre

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

ITA 1394/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Satyajeet Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 250

require to be remitted back tot eh file of the CIT(A) with the directions to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass a speaking order. We hold and direct accordingly. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee

Malkeet Kaur, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 28(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1393/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Satyajeet Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 250

Kamal Goyal, South West Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2) Gurugaon, Gurugaon

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

ITA 1343/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Shri Somil Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)

issues in dispute to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the directions to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass a speaking order. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Kamal Goyal, South West Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Gurugaon

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

ITA 1342/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Shri Somil Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)

Kamal Goyal, South West Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Gurugaon

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

ITA 1341/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Shri Somil Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)

Kamal Goyal, South West Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Gurugaon, Gurugoan

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

ITA 1340/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Shri Somil Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)

Mehinder Sharma, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 61(1), Delhi

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

ITA 4883/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh.Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2016-17 Mehinder Sharma, E-156 Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Greater Kailash Part-1, New Income Tax Circle 61(1) Delhi , 110048 Delhi Pan No.Aakps7142R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 47Section 68

Counsel for assessee has submitted that Ld. NFAC should have decided the appeal on merit. He also submitted that sufficient opportunity of being heard was not provided by the authority. 6. Learned authorized representative for Department of Revenue submitted that departmental authorities have passed reasoned orders. He also submitted that

Anil Jain, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-36(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 4753/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shuklaasstt. Year : 2017-18 Anil Jain, Vs. Ito, Ward 36(2), 301, Third Floor, New Delhi Narkhanda Apartment, Sector-31, Gurgaon Haryana-122001 (Pan: Aaepj3523D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Aman Garg, Ca Respondent By : Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 25.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.06.2025 Order Per Mahavir Singh, Vp:

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Aman Garg, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 144

issues in dispute to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the directions to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, for which ld. DR has no objection. We hold and direct accordingly. Assessee is also directed to fully cooperate with

Paradime Technologies Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

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

ITA 3865/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has decided the issues without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee to present its case. It is the say of the ld. counsel for the assessee that several additional evidences have been submitted ... Paradime Technologies Vs. ACIT back to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the issues afresh after allowing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. The assessee is also directed to provide necessary information /documents as required by the authorities and co-operate in adjudication

Sakuntala Devi, Buland Shahr vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(2), Buland Shahr

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

ITA 2032/DEL/2024[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalsakuntala Dev, Income Tax Officer Village Dastoora, Ward-3(2), Post Bicchat Sujanpur, Vs. Buland Shahr. Khurja District, Buland Sahar, Uttar Pradesh-203203. Pan:Dnqpd2476F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.06.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘The Cit(A) In Short), Dated 24.03.2024 For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Ld. Sr. Dr Appeared For The Revenue. 3. Heard The Ld. Sr. Dr & Perused The Record Available. From Perusal Of The Impugned Order, It Clearly Shows That The Despite Of Giving Various Opportunities Of Hearing, The Assessee Failed To Make Any Submissions Or Filed Documentary Evidence In Support Of Her Claim. Therefore, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Compelled To Disposed Of The Appeal Of The Assessee By Confirming Various Additions Made By The Assessing Officer. Before Us Also, The Assessee Has Not Come Forward To Dispute The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), However, When The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Before The Tribunal, It Seems That She Is Vigilant To Represent Her Case Before The Tribunal. Considering The Facts That Assessee

aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to his file for fresh adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to both the parties. If the assessee fails to represent her case or furnish any documentary evidences, the Ld. CIT(A) is free to decide

Gurpreet Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-49(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 372/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmangurpreet Singh, Vs. Ito, Ward 49 (3), 56, Narang Colony, Janakpuri, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. (Pan : Abjps5481M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2025 Date Of Order : 25.06.2025 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 12.12.2022 For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, It Is Brought To Our Notice That Even During Assessment Proceedings, Assessee Was Only Seeking Continuous Adjournments Which Ao Has Granted Generously. Even Before Ld. Cit (A), No Documentary Evidences Were Submitted Before Him Even Though Assessee Was Given Several

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

file of ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue on merit after getting proper documentary evidences from the assessee, after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Further we direct assessee also to submit relevant information and comply to the notices issued by the lower authorities without seeking

Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs. Acc Logistics Private Limited, Delhi

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

ITA 2704/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shuklaincome Tax Officer, Vs. Acc Logistics Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi 8445/1, First Floor, Arya Nagar, Paharganj, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aagca6988C

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 148

adjudication of the matter. We, therefore, set aside the ld CIT(A) and direct him to re-adjudicate the appeal afresh by giving opportunity of being heard to the Assessee and in accordance with law. All the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are therefore allowed for statistical purposes

Kdp Buildwell P.Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 524/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmam/S. Kdp Buildwell Pvt. Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, A-213, 1St Floor, Shanti Gopal Chamber, Ghaziabad. Vikas Marg, Shakarpur, Delhi – 110 092. (Pan :Aabcs6353E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.04.2025 Date Of Order : 25.06.2025 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)-Iv, Kanpur [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 23.03.2018 For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, A Search & Seizure Operation Under Section 132 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) Was Conducted On 26.09.2014 On The Premises Of The Assessee Comprising Kdp/Mgp Group Of Cases. Based On The Incriminating Material Found During The Search, A Notice

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 140ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 153C

with a direction to readjudicate the appeal on merits. Needless to say that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is ordered accordingly. 13. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.” 8. Since the facts in the present case are exactly ... file of ld. CIT (A) and direct him to admit the appeal and readjudicate the appeal on merits after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court

Ajay Kumar, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 802/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 145Section 145(3)

order passed by CIT(A) are against the principles of natural justice and the same has been passed without affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard. 12. That the interest u/s 234A & 234B has been wrongly and illegally charged as the appellant could not have foreseen the disallowances/additions made ... order passed by CIT(A) are against the principles of natural justice and the same has been passed without affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard. 13. That the interest u/s 234A & 234B has been wrongly and illegally charged as the appellant could not have foreseen the disallowances/additions made

Ajay Kumar, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Ward- 1(1), Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 801/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 145Section 145(3)

DCIT, Circle- 1, Muzaffarnagar vs. Ajay Kumar, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 665/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 145Section 145(3)

Sh Ranjeet Kumar Sharma, Gwalior vs. ITO 2(1), Gwalior

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed with the observations made herein above

ITA 62/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalito, 2(1), Shri Ranjeet Kumar Gawalior. Sharma, Vs. Meera Colony, Bihind-477447 Madhya Pradesh. Pan-Bwdps0542K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajendra Sharma, Adv. & Shri Manuj Sharma, Adv. Department By Shri Shailendra Srivastava. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2025

Section 143(3)Section 69A

details filed by the assessee and decide this issue in accordance with law. Needless to say, the assessee be provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Ground of appeal No.2 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Ranjeet Kumar Sharma vs. ITO 15. The additional grounds of appeal

Shree Ramraja Homes Pvt.Ltd, Jhansi vs. DCIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Agra

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

ITA 205/AGR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwaldcit, Shree Ramraja Homes Circle-2(1)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Sanjay Place, Agra. 7, Om Building, New Road, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh- 284002 Pan-Aapcs3955G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Utsav Sehgal, Ca Department By Shri Shailendra Srivastava. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2025 O R D E R [ Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi [‘Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Dated 28.03.2024, In Appeal No. Nfac/2016-17/10165707 For Assessment Year 2017- 18 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, Inshort) Dated 21.03.2022. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Private Limited Company Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate & Filed Its Return Shree Ramraja Homes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit Of Income On 28.09.2017 Declaring Total Income At Rs.46,53,593/-. The Assessing Officer Has Information In Its Possession That Assessee Has Made Cash Deposit In Specified Bank Notes (Sbn) During The Demonetization Period Of Rs.34,00,000/-, Therefore, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Way Of Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act On 31.03.2021 After Recording The Reasons & Taking Necessary Approvals From The Competent Authority. The Assessee Has Not Filed Any Return Of Income In Response To Notice U/S 148 Nor Made Any Response To The Notices Issued By The Ao On Various Occasions Including Show Cause Notice Dated 08.03.2022. Therefore, The Ao Has Completed The Assessment U/S 144 Of The Act By Making Addition Of Rs.34,00,000/- By Treating The Same As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The Act & Further Invoked The Provisions Of Section 115Bbe Of The Act.

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 69A

material placed by the appellant before the Ld. CIT(A), (b). That the Ld. CIT(A) passed the impugned order without giving proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant and formed unilateral opinion without delving into the facts and circumstances present in the case of the appellant