“opportunity of being heard”

Tarun Muradia, Udaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1 Udaipur, Udaipur

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

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

hence liable to be quashed. 1.3 The Id CIT(A) has also erred in passing the exparty order without Providing the opportunity of being heard in gross breach of law which are illegal, bad in law and on the facts of the case against the provisions and procedures

Ankita Agarwal, Jamshedpur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Jamshedpur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.499/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ankita Agarwal………...................................…...........................……….……Appellant Near Kali Mandir, Harharguttu, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand-831002. [Pan: Atkpa9502A] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Jamshedpur........…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 19, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 23, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 28.06.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 125 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause & That The Delay Was Not Intentional. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case. 3. No One Has Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee In Spite Of Serving Notices For Hearing & The Tribunal Cannot Keep This Appeal Pending For Indefinite Time Due To Non-Representation. Therefore, In The Absence Of Any Authorised Representative Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Decide The

issue back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to re-examine the issues on merits after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee for submitting relevant details or documents to substantiate the claim of the assessee. We also emphasise that the assessee must

Renu Kumari, Ranchi vs. ITO Ward-2(4), Ranchi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.497/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Renu Kumari...………...................................…...........................……….……Appellant Qtr. No.B/824, Sector-Ii, Dhurwa, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834004. [Pan: Adlpk4316K] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(4), Ranchi……........…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri M. K. Choudhary, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 19, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 23, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14.07.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Did Not File Her Return Of Income For The Relevant Assessment Year. Thereafter, Notice 142(1) Of The Act Was Issued Directing The Assessee To Submit Relevant Details. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Found That During The Period Of 01.04.2016 To 31.03.2017, The Assessee Had Made Deposits Amounting To Rs.31,67,857/- In Her Bank Accounts. Due To Lack Of Any Explanation Or Reply, The Assessing Officer Treated Rs.31,67,857/- As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The Act & Added The Same To The Assessee’S Total Income.

file of the ld. I.T.A. No.497/Ran/2024 Renu Kumari CIT(A) with a direction to re-examine the case on merits after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee to represent her case. We also direct the assessee to diligently comply with the notices issued and will duly participate

Khurshid Alam, Bokaro vs. ITO Ward-2(7), Hazaribagh

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.496/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Khurshid Alam.………...................................…...........................……….……Appellant Jhirkey, Kathara, Bokaro, Jharkhand-829116. [Pan: Ahxpa0635P] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(7), Hazaribagh........…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri M. K. Choudhary, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 19, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 23, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.04.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 540 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause & The Delay Was Not Intentional. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derived Income From Salary. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2010-11 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,38,770/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass Followed

issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to re-examine the case on merits after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee to represent his case. We also direct the assessee to diligently comply with the notices issued and will duly participate

Pawan Kumar, Ranchi vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Ranchi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.487/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Pawan Kumar….………...................................…...........................……….……Appellant A/3, Manorama Enclave, Argora, Pundag Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834012. [Pan: Agypk0863F] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), Ranchi……........…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 19, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 23, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 03.10.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 15 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause & That The Delay Was Not Intentional. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case. 3. No One Has Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee In Spite Of Serving Notices For Hearing & The Tribunal Cannot Keep This Appeal Pending For Indefinite Time Due To Non-Representation. Therefore, In The Absence Of Any Authorised Representative Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Decide The

back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to re-examine the issue afresh on merits after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee for submitting relevant details or documents to substantiate his claim. We also emphasise that the assessee must fully cooperate

Vipin Sharma, Giridih vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Dhanbad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.480/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vipin Sharma………...................................…...........................……….……Appellant Thana Road Suriya Beside Dayal Bhawan, Suriya, Barki Saraiya, Giridih, Jharkhand – 825320. [Pan: Dgjps4695R] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Dhn........…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 19, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 23, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 25.10.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. No One Has Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee In Spite Of Serving Notices For Hearing & The Tribunal Cannot Keep This Appeal Pending For Indefinite Time Due To Non-Representation. Therefore, In The Absence Of Any Authorised Representative Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Decide The Appeal With The Assistance Of Ld. Dr & Also Considering The Material Available On Record. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Has Not Filed Return For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessing Officer Found That The Assessee Had Deposited Cash Amounting To Rs.36,12,900/- During The Relevant Assessment Year Into His Bank

issue back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to re-examine the issues on merits after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee for submitting relevant details or documents to substantiate the claim of the assessee. We also emphasise I.T.A. No.480/Ran/2024 Vipin Sharma

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot vs. Chetan Nandlal Sangani, Rajkot

In the result, Revenue’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 248 & 249/Rjt/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2018-19 & 2019-20) Deputy Commissioner Of Chetan Nandlal Sangani Income Tax, Central Circle– Vs. 309, Shalin Complex, 2, Madhavi Chowk, Soni Rajkot, “Amruta Estate”, 2Nd Bazar, Rajkot-360 001 Floor, Mg Road, Rajko-360 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amvps 5788 E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Hence, the details for other AYs may please be exempted. However, in case your goodself, inclines otherwise, then an opportunity of being heard in this behalf, and opportunity of submitting the details for other AYs, may please be granted to us.” 8. However, the assessing officer rejected the contention

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circ;E-2, Rajkot vs. Chetan Nandlal Sangani, Rajkot

Hence, the details for other AYs may please be exempted. However, in case your goodself, inclines otherwise, then an opportunity of being heard in this behalf, and opportunity of submitting the details for other AYs, may please be granted to us.” 8. However, the assessing officer rejected the contention