← All Phrases

“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

Citron Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT Central -4, Mumbai

ITA 2654/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Citron Infraprojects Ltd., Pr. Cit (Central)-4, 97, 9Th Floor, Maker Tower F, Room No.663, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Cuffe Parade, Vs. Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 005. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aadcc 3735 C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Mr. R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 260ASection 263

Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No. 1518/Mum/2023 , with a direction to the PCIT to decide the matter afresh after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Pursuant thereto, Citron Infraprojects Ltd 3 the impugned order was passed by the learned PCIT, wherein the assessment order dated

Ramavtar Educational Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai

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

ITA 2601/MUM/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankarramavtar Educational V/S. Commissioner Of Income Tax Trust, Room No. 2, बनाम (Exemptions), Mumbai, Ward Cutting No. 5, Girija – Cumballa Hill, Mtnl Te Sankar Patel Chawl, Kurar Building, Peddar Road, Dr. Village, Malad (East), Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai - 400 097, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai – Maharashtra 400026, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadtr6649B Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Uma Shankar Prasad (CIT DR)
Section 12A

submitted by the assessee. The principles of natural justice operate both ways, while the Revenue authorities are required to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard, the taxpayer is equally obligated to co- operate with the authorities and utilize the opportunities extended. 6. Before us, the ld.AR made a request ... Ramavtar Educational Trust Mumbai adjudication while applying the principles of natural justice after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 17.06.2025. PAWAN SINGH PRABHASH SHANKAR (न्याययक सदस्य /JUDICIAL

Data Sher Singh Salaria Charitable Trust, Data Sher Singh Salaria Charit vs. Income Tax Officer 1(1), Jammu

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

ITA 551/ASR/2024[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Jun 2025AY 2024-2025

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No.225 & 551/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: N/A Data Sher Singh Salaria Vs. Ito Ward-1(1), Charitable Trust, Sohagpur, Jammu. Arnia, Jammu & Kashmir. [Pan:-Aadtd3226G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

That the Ld. C.I.T. (Exemptions), Chandigarh, rejected the application for registration u/s 12AA without passing a speaking order and without giving any reasonable opportunity of being heard. 3. That Ld. C.I.T. (Exemptions), Chandigarh, did not appreciate that while granting the registration u/s 12AA, the CIT(E) is only to examine

Shree Amar Kshatriya Sabha Charitable Trust, Jammu vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- ( Exemptions), Jammu

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 492/ASR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 492/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21

Section 11Section 119Section 12(1)(b)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 250

passed by CPC are both against the facts of this case and are untenable under the law. 2. That no reasonable and proper opportunity of being heard was allowed by CPC while passing the Intimation u/s 143(1). As such the same is liable to be cancelled. Similarly, the order

Data Sher Singh Salaria Charitable Trust, Jammu vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Jammu

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

ITA 225/ASR/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Jun 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No.225 & 551/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: N/A Data Sher Singh Salaria Vs. Ito Ward-1(1), Charitable Trust, Sohagpur, Jammu. Arnia, Jammu & Kashmir. [Pan:-Aadtd3226G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

That the Ld. C.I.T. (Exemptions), Chandigarh, rejected the application for registration u/s 12AA without passing a speaking order and without giving any reasonable opportunity of being heard. 3. That Ld. C.I.T. (Exemptions), Chandigarh, did not appreciate that while granting the registration u/s 12AA, the CIT(E) is only to examine

Kapildev Dubey, Mayurbhanj vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Baripada, Mayurbhanj

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

ITA 185/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: P.K. Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: S.C. Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 694ASection 69A

well as of fact in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant, without providing sufficient ITA No. 185/CTK/2025 Kapildev Dubey effective reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. The impugned Appellate order passed by the learned CIT(A), being made on gross violation of principles of natural justice ... made by the learned A.O., on the basis of previous year return of income, ignoring the explanation offered and without providing further effective opportunity of being heard to the Assessee to substantiate it, is illegal, contrary to the facts on record and not sustainable

M J Pra Seva Nivrut Adhikari Karmachari Sanghatana, Amravati vs. ITO Ward-3 (Exemption), Nagpur

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

ITA 91/NAG/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Jun 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

Department under the ‘Other Head’ within 15 days from the date of this order. Suffice to say, the learned CIT(E) shall afford opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to comply with the notice to be issued by the learned CIT(E) and file

Priti Kailash Vyas, Amravati vs. ITO Ward -5, Amravati

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

ITA 77/NAG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Saket Mehta, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Anand Nagrale, Ld. Sr.DR
Section 250

Services Authority Bench at Nagpur within 15 days from the date of this order. Suffice to say the ld. Commissioner shall provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. The Assessee is also directed to comply with the notices to be issued by the Ld. Commissioner

M/S Sant Yogiraj Urban Credit Co-Op Society, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(4), Nagpur

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

ITA 203/NAG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry& Shri K.M. Roy

For Appellant: Shri D.P. Lohiya, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Anand Nagrale, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 250Section 253(5)

Commissioner after declining request for condonation of delay and before touching upon the merits of the case, eventually has not given any opportunity of being heard to the Assessee and therefore in the interest of substantial justice and for just and proper decision of the case, we are inclined ... remand the case to the file of Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh on merits, suffice to say, by affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 9. Thus, the case is accordingly remanded to the file of Ld. Commissioner, in the terms above. 10. In the result, appeal

Berar Finance Limited, Nagpur vs. DCIT/ACIT Circle -1, Nagpur

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

ITA 202/NAG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy

For Appellant: Shri Suren Duragkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anand Nagrale, Sr. DR
Section 250

Thus, the case is remanded to the file of Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say, by providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 3. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court

Yamini Pankaj Gawande, Akola vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Akola

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

ITA 191/NAG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy

For Appellant: Ms. Veena Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anand Nagrale, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 69A

restored to the file of the Assessing Officer being an exceptional case for decision afresh, suffice to say, by affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 3 ITA.No.191/NAG/2025 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open

Paras Agro Processors, Chandrapur vs. DCIT Central Circle 1(2), Nagpur

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

ITA 182/NAG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Anand Nagrale
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 69A

order and consequently remand the case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and subject to deposit of ` 1,100/– (Rupees eleven hundred only), so that the assessee would become more vigilant

Goodearth Infrastructure Development Limited, Patiala vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1117/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1117/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vs. The Dcit, Goodearth Infrastructure बनाम Central Circe 1(1), Development Limited, Chandigarh 6458/1, Lahori Gate, Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaica9869Q अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.06.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 56(2)(viib)

passed by Ld. AO and then by Worthy CIT(A) deserve to be quashed since the same have been passed without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 1117-Chd-2024 – Goodearth Infrastructure Development Limited, Patiala 7 4. That the appellant craves leave for any addition, deletion ... parte without giving opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. 7. The ld. CIT(A) in his appellate order has mentioned that various opportunities of being heard were given to the Assessee by issuing notices on 24.10.2020, 23.6.2023, 12.10.2023 fixing the case for 31.12.2020, 17.7.2023 and 23.10.2023 but despite different opportunities

Gurjeetsingh Jarnail Singh Nahal, Pune vs. ITO Ward 7(3), Pune

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

ITA 1222/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1222/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 144Section 250Section 44ASection 5Section 69A

speaking order. 3. The learned CIT(A) NFAC erred in law and on facts in passing an appellate order without giving an adequate opportunity for being heard, and thereby violating the principle of natural justice. 4. The appellant contends that no addition ought to be made even on a presumptive ... appeal. 4 Gurjeet Singh Jarnail Singh Nahal 5. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to Ground No.3 stated that adequate opportunity of being heard was not provided by ld.CIT(A) and there were various details which the assessee possessed but could not produce in order to explain

Sardar Dastur Schools Trust, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption, Pmt Building, Swargate, Pune

ITA 1137/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1137/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sardar Dastur Schools Trust, 3 Lt Col Tarapore Road, Camp, Pune – 411001. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaats4768F Appellant/ Assessee V The Dy.Commissioner Of S. Income Tax Exemption, Pune. Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Abhilash Hiran – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajitesh Kumar Meena Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) [Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 26.02.2025 For A.Y.2017-18 Emanating From The Penalty Order Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 18.01.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 11(1)(a)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 270ASection 270A(10)(c)

fair play, the ex-parte order passed may kindly be recalled and the appeal be restored for adjudication on merits after granting an opportunity of being heard. ITA No.1137/PUN/2025 [A] The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, modify or withdraw any grounds of appeal in the interest of justice

Smiles Foundation, Satara vs. CIT Exemption Pune, Pune

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

ITA 1113/PUN/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jun 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1113/Pun/2025 Smiles Foundation, V The Cit Exemption, Shop No.2, 1671/A 170 Sushila S. Pune. Vasant Vihar, Mangalwar Peth, Satara – 415002. Maharashtra. Pan: Aasts2069K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Praful S. Shaha – Ar Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.08.2024 Rejecting Assessee’S Application For Registration Under Section 80G(5) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Clarification On Loan From Trustees: We Would Like To Appeal That The Loan Was Taken Interest Free From The Trustee. The Intention Was To Just Carry On The Activities Of The Trust Without Any Intention To Gain Benefit. Hence We Request You To Consider This Fact. Also The Appellant Has Made Significant Efforts To Follow Legal Requirements & Requests That This Matter Be Reconsidered.

Section 12Section 12ASection 80G(5)

ld.CIT(E), we ITA No.1113/PUN/2025 [A] set-aside the order u/s.80G(5) to ld.CIT(E) for denovo adjudication. The ld.CIT(E) shall provide opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Assessee shall file necessary details before the ld.CIT(E). Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Hitech Animation Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 10(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 760/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.760/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year. : 2020-2021) Hitech Animation Private Limited Vs Ito, Ward-10(2), Kolkata 113A, Mateshartala Road, Topsia Kolkata-700046 Pan No. :Aacch 6644 L (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Akash Mansinka, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Kapil Mandal, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.02.2025, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For A.Y.2020-2021. 2. Shri Akash Mansinka, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Kapil Mandal, Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. At The Outset, A Perusal Of The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Shows That The Assessment Order Was Passed On 24.09.2022 Which Was Served On The Assesse On 24.09.2022, However, The Assesse Filed Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) On 06.02.2023, Resulting Into Near About 100 Days Delay In Filing The Appeal. In This Regard, The Assesse Could Not Explain Before The Ld. Cit(A), However, Ld. Ar Submitted During The Course Of Hearing Before Us That The Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Was Due To Change Of Incumbent In The Office Of The Assesse & Prayed That The Delay May Kindly Be Condoned & The Assessee May Be Given One More Opportunity

For Appellant: Shri Akash Mansinka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mandal, Sr. DR

restore the issues in this appeal to the file of ld. CIT(A) for readjudication afresh after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee is directed to cooperate in the readjudication proceedings before the Assessing Officer positively. 4. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly

Kulingram O Beler Dhanyakuria Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited, Basirhat vs. Office of the Income Tax Officer Ward 49(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 631/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mandal, Sr. DR

issues to the file of Id. CIT(A) for readjudicating the issues in both the appeals 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 in both the appeals by the assessee to the Legal

Kulingram O Beler Dhanyakuria Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited, Basirhat vs. ITO, Ward 49(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 451/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mandal, Sr. DR

issues to the file of Id. CIT(A) for readjudicating the issues in both the appeals 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 in both the appeals by the assessee to the Legal

Santanu Roy Income Tax Officer Ward 10(2), Kolkata vs. Bruck Pharma Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 372/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: FixedITAT Kolkata16 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Priyavrat Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.N.Barnwal, CIT-DR

interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of Assessing Officer for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee shall produce the directors of M/s Bhuvneshwari Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. before the Assessing Officer for examination and to substantiate its claim ... speaking order, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. This appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, both appeals of the revenue are partly allowed