“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

Lambodar Distributors Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 10(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 183/KOL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rakesh Mishra, Am Lambodar Distributors Private Ito, Ward 10(2) Limited Aaykar Bhavan, P-7 Asha Chambers 6B, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Bentick Street, Room No.25, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcl1158Q Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Kapil Mandal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.06.2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mandal, DR

issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld. CIT (A) for re- adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. This is subject to a cost of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) by the assessee to the Legal Aid Services, 3rd Floor

Dhanesh Paswan, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 48, Kolkata

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

ITA 413/KOL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.455/KOL/2023 & 413/KOL/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Year. : 2009-2010 & 2010-2011) | Dhanesh Paswan, Staff Quarter Indian Botanic Garden, B Garden, Shibpur, Howrah-711103 | Vs | ACIT, Circle-46 Kolkata | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----|---------------------------------------| | PAN No. : ANWPP 6528 Κ | | | | (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) | :

For Appellant: Shri Pritam Sudhukhan, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Ranu Biswas, Addl.CIT-Sr.DR

Section 144

theft. With the above directions, the issues in both the appeals are restored to the file of AO for readjudication after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced

ITO, Ward-5(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Shivrashi Infraprojects Private Limited, Kolkata

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

ITA 2328/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Court in the decisions relied upon by the Revenue and which are also mentioned in the grounds of appeal and after providing an opportunity of being heard to the Ld. AO as required under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Hence, all the grounds of appeal are allowed

Dhanesh Paswan, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-46, Kol, Kolkata

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

ITA 455/KOL/2023[200-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jun 2025

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.455/KOL/2023 & 413/KOL/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Year. : 2009-2010 & 2010-2011) | | Vs | ACIT, Circle-46 Kolkata | |---|---|---| | Dhanesh Paswan, Staff Quarter Indian Botanic Garden, B Garden, Shibpur, Howrah-711103 | | | | PAN No. : ANWPP 6528 Κ | | | | (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) | : | (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) | | निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee by | : | Shri Pritam Sudhukhan, AR | | राजस्व की

For Appellant: Shri Pritam Sudhukhan, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Ranu Biswas, Addl.CIT-Sr.DR

Section 144

Hearts for Hearts, Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

In the result the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 882/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.882/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: - Hearts For Hearts, The Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.11, Judge Jambulingam Road, (Exemptions), Mylapore, Chennai Chennai-600 004. [Pan: Aabth1198K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.J.Saravanan, Advocate, प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Ann Mary Baby, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : .06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.J.Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Ann Mary Baby, CIT

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

submitted that the Ld. CIT(E ) has dismissed its application for registration u/s 12A (1) (ac)(iii) of the Act without giving proper opportunity of being heard. It ITA No. 882 /Chny/2025 was submitted that denial of the registration u/s 12AB was attributable to the notices issued ... directions to reconsider the assessee’s application dated 07.05.2024 in Form-10AB for grant of registration u/s 12AB de novo by giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assesse is directed to make complete and correct compliance towards the notices issued by the Ld.CIT

Balasubramanian Ramaiyan, Thiruvarur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Thiruvarur

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

ITA 877/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.877/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 Balasubramanian Ramaiyan, Income Tax Officer, Door No.3/237, Ward-1, Akkari Udaiyar Street, Thiruvarur. Ammaiyappan Kudavasal, Thiruvarur, Tamil Nadu-613 701. [Pan: Akhpb8741N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Tarun, Advocate For S.Sridhar, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Ann Marry Baby, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : .06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Tarun, Advocate for S.SridharFor Respondent: Ms.Ann Marry Baby, CIT

outset, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the order has been passed by the Ld.First Appellate Authority without giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It was stated that the statutory notices were not sent to the email provided by the assessee in Form ... impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is therefore set aside and he is directed to readjudicate the matter de novo after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall make necessary compliances to the notices of hearing and any non-compliance would be adversely viewed. Accordingly

Aroumougam, Puducherry vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Puducherry

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

ITA 875/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.875/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2011-12 Aroumougam, Income Tax Officer, No.22 & 24, Ward-3, Logamuthu Mariamman Koil Street, Puducherry. Muthialpet, Puducherry-605 003. [Pan: Aaapy2726K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundar, C.A, प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Gautham S.Mukundan, Irs सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : .06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundar, C.AFor Respondent: Ms.Gautham S.Mukundan, IRS

Section 69A

adjudicate this appeal. 3.0 At the outset, Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order without giving it adequate opportunity of being heard. It is the case of the assessee that the statutory notices were issued on email ID camalame@aol.com was furnished at the time ... that as it may be we are of the view that ends of justice would be met if assessee is given one last opportunity of being heard to present its case before the Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the order of lower authorities and direct the Ld.CIT

Prabakaran Chandru, Tiruvarur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tiruvarur

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

ITA 864/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.864/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 Prabakaran Chandru, Income Tax Officer, No.3/455, Akkaraimelathoppu Street, Ward-1, Ammaiyappankodavasal Tk, Tiruvarur. Tiruvarur, Tamil Nadu-613 704. [Pan: Bacpc8225J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.Arjunraj, Advocate, प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Gautham S.Mukundan, Irs सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : .06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.Arjunraj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gautham S.Mukundan, IRS

Section 69A

Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order without giving adequate opportunity of being heard. Attention was invited to page 2 of the order of the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.Counsel submitted that the entire controversy is regarding addition of Rs.1 ... Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and direct him to readjudicate the appeal de novo after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and by passing a speaking order. The assessee shall comply with the statutory notices and any non-compliance shall be adversely

Warrier Rudraprasad, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Corp. Ward-5(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purp

ITA 858/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.858/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2011-12 Warrier Rudraprasad, Income Tax Officer, No.13, Ii Floor, Ii Street, Corporate Ward-5(1), Vckn Layout, Sivananda Colony, Chennai Coimbatore Tamil Nadu-641 012. [Pan: Adwpr1325G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Suraj Nahar, C.A., प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Gautham S Mukundan, Irs सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : .06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Nahar, C.AFor Respondent: Ms.Gautham S Mukundan, IRS

case. Accordingly, we set aside the order of lower authorities and direct the Ld.AO to readjudicate the matter de novo after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The decision to remit it back to the Ld. AO is taken in view of the fact that an Assessing ... passing a speaking order. To the extent the order of lower authorities on the issue stands set aside. The Ld. AO shall give opportunities of being heard to the assesse and it shall be bounden upon the assesse to comply with the notices issued

Kuthethur Kalyani Das, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-3(4), Chennai

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

ITA 783/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.783/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2012-13 Kuthethur Kalyani Das, Income Tax Officer, 1B, Anu Apts, Non-Corporate Ward-3(4), No.69 C Spurtank Road, Chennai. Chetpet, Chennai-600 031. [Pan: Buipk5930L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri D.Anand, Advocate, प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : .06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri D.Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT

excused as the assessee was preoccupied with some personal matters and that now full compliance would made if an opportunity of being heard is given. 3.0 Per contra, the Ld. DR relied upon the order of lower authorities. 4.0 We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material ... passing a speaking order. To the extent the order of lower authorities on the issue stands set aside. The Ld. AO shall give opportunities of being heard to the assesse and it shall be bounden upon the assesse to comply with the notices issued

Mohammed Iqbal Khan, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 22 (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3132/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita Kaushik, Sr. D/R

that since no period of limitation applies to the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) should have given a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. We restore the quarrel to the file of the ld. CIT(A). The assessee is directed to attend ... support of its challenge to the additions and the ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide the issues afresh after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 18th June

Mohammed Iqbal Khan, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 22 (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3131/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita Kaushik, Sr. D/R

Cotaap Reserch Foundation, Mumbai vs. CIT(Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 2968/MUM/2025[N.A]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhancotaap Research Foundation Cit(Exemptions), Cotton Exchange Building, 2Nd Floor, R. No. 601, 6Th Floor, Cumbulla Opp. Cotton Green Railway Station, Vs. Hill, Mtnl Building, Pedder Cotton Green (East), Road, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Mumbai-400 033 Marg, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai, Pan: Aaatc0052A Maharashtra – 400 026

Section 80GSection 80G(5)

order dated March 25, 2025, cancelling the provisional registration under section 80G of the Act without providing the Appellant with a reasonable opportunity of being heard by the Ld. CIT(E). 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(E) has erred

Kaycee Finstock Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 6688/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeekaycee Finstock Pvt Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 7Th 705, Floor, Maker Tax -2(1)(1), Mumbai Chamber V, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai Pan : Aacck6191P Applicant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi– Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

issue of levy of penalty in accordance with law, considering the above observations. Needless to state, the assessee shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the set-aside proceedings. At the same time, the assessee is expected to be diligent and cooperative to ensure expeditious disposal

Zscaler, Inc., United States of America vs. DCIT, International Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), New Delhi

The appeals are allowed

ITA 928/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal, Ccountant Member Assessment Year: 2021-22 Assessment Year : 2022-23 Zscaler Inc., Vs Dcit, 120, Holger Way San Jose, International Tax Circle 3(1)(1), California, Usa, Delhi. Usa 95134. Pan: Aaacz4350P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate; Shri Kishore Kunal, Advocate; Ms Ankita Prakash, Advocate; & Shri Govind Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Ekta Jain, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.06.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Orders Dated 31.10.2023 & 22.01.2025 Passed By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, International Tax Circle 3(1)(1), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Ekta Jain, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Softeeh India Private Limited (‘Zscaler India’) as Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment (‘DAPE’) of the Appellant without issuing show cause notice and without providing opportunity of being heard, therefore, the impugned order passed by the Ld. AO is against the principles of natural justice and ought to be quashed for this

Mukesh Bharija, New Delhi vs. JCIT(OSD), Central Circle-26, New Delhi

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

ITA 393/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 131Section 132A

Mukesh Bharija, New Delhi assesse ignoring the documents produced substantiating the source of cash. 4. That appellant has not got opportunity of being heard in the course of assessment proceedings for the sake of natural justice as adjournment sought was ignored. 5. That the appellant craves to leave

Tejasvi Bhalla, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-50(1), Delhi

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

ITA 3762/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69

available 5. on the record. In view of the interest of justice, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee deserves reasonable opportunity of being heard to make shortcomings or non-compliances. In view thereof, without offering any and remit the issues of additions of Rs.7 ... Rs.1,77,38,463/ back to the file of the AO to be decided afresh after providing reasonable opportunities of being heard to the assessee. 6. The issue relating to initiation of penalty under section 271AAC of the Act, being premature, stands dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal

Dushyant Bhati, Noida vs. PCIT, Noida

In the result, the appeal of appellant/assessee is allowed

ITA 1914/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Shri SomilFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop CIT (DR)

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 154BSection 263

Assessing Officer is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, afier giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case

Jkb Exim Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 13(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1817/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandrajkb Exim Private Limited Vs. Dcit 5955/3, Hardhian Singh Circle 13(2) Road, Dev Nagar, Karol C. R. Building, Ito, Ip Estate, Bagh, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaccj2220J Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Ajay Bhagwani, Ca & Sh. Ravinder Mahajan, C.A Revenue By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18/06/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Nfac’ For Short] Dated

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

written submissions and paper book were duly filed time to time however, the order impugned has been passed without affording opportunity of being heard to the Assessee, wherein the final notice has been servedjust five days before passing the order impugned, therefore, sought for allowing the appeal. 4. Per contra ... Petition No. 12317/2022 dated 27/02/2025. Further direct the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the Appeal afresh in accordance with law after providing the opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 4 JKB Exim Private Limited Vs. DCIT 6. In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Zscaler, Inc., United States vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Delhi

The appeals are allowed

ITA 3376/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Ekta Jain, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)