“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

Aura Gold Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-3(4), Delhi

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

ITA 2435/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Aura Gold Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Shop No.2, First Floor, Ward-3(4), 1164, Kucha Mahajani, Vs Room No.381, C.R. Building, Chandni Chowk, New Delhi-110002 Delhi-110006 Pan-Aaica9325K Assessee Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

aside to his file to pass an order afresh after making necessary enquiries as required in this case and after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to appear before the AO and make necessary compliance before the Assessing Officer during ... account, we set-aside the order of the AO and restore this issue to his file to pass afresh order after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is further directed that the AO will forward the copy of Inspector’s report dated 12.03.2019 to the assessee

Balwant Singh Chauhan, Noida vs. ITO Ward 4(2), Patna

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

ITA 49/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Sanjay Awasthi(Through Virtual Hearing At Kolkata)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT

Section 147Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

well as on the facts of the case in passing ex-party order without providing adequate and 3 ITANos.48&49/Pat/2025 reasonable opportunity of being heard in the gross breach of law. Hence the additions so made by the Id. AO may kindly be quashed and delete ... grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in passing ex-party order without providing adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard in the gross breach of law. Hence the additions so made by the Id. AO may kindly be quashed and delete. 3.Rs

Balwant Singh Chouhan, Noida vs. ITO Ward 4(2), Patna

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

ITA 48/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Sanjay Awasthi(Through Virtual Hearing At Kolkata)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT

Section 147Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

Venkateswara Divakara Shenoy, Ernakulam vs. DCIT Corporate Cir 1(1), Ernakulam

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

ITA 385/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathyamma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal Snr. AR

Section 147Section 148

file of 3 Venkateswara Divakara Shenoy the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to re-adjudicate the appeal after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court

Paloor Soman Rajeev, Cheruthony vs. Income Tax Officer, Thodupuzha

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 323/COCH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Years: 2020-21 Paloor Soman Rajeev Ito, Thodupuzha V. Kkp Building, Idukki Colony P O, Cheruthony, Idukki 685602, Kerala. Pan : Akzpr9669R. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sreeraj, Ca Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Snr Ar. Date Of Hearing : 05.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2025 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 10.03.2025 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2020–21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Has Filed Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2020-21 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.5,42,320/- & Claiming Agricultural Income As Exempt Income At Rs.45 Lakhs. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected Under E- Assessment Scheme In Order To Scrutinize Substantial Increase In Agricultural Income As Compared To That Shown In Preceding Return & To Verify The Genuineness Of The Agricultural Income & The Agricultural Activity Of The Assessee. The Assessing Officer Issued Statutory Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Served

For Appellant: Shri Sreeraj, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr AR

Section 143(2)Section 144

whole issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to re-examine the issue afresh after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee in the remand proceedings. We also direct the assessee to file supporting documents in order to substantiate its claim before

Suresh Krishnamoorthy, Thiruvananthapuram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Alappuzha

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 321/COCH/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Jun 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal Snr. AR

Section 143(1)Section 154

with a direction to examine the DTAA claim in accordance with law and allow relief to the assessee after granting due opportunity of being heard. 7. In view of the above, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 13th June

ITO, TDS, Palakkad vs. District Lottery Officer Palakkad, Palakkad

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

ITA 315/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal Snr. AR

Section 194B

should be remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after proper verification of facts and affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, ITA No. 314/Coch/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes. 9. ITA No.315/Coch/2025 - As the facts and issues are identical

ITO, TDS, Palakkad vs. District Lottery Officer Palakkad, Palakkad

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

ITA 314/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal Snr. AR

Section 194B

Kuthuparamba Service Cooperative Bank Ltd, Kannur vs. ITO, Ward 1 & Tps, Kannur

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

ITA 311/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Kuthuparamba Service Co-Operative ..….……….Appellant Bank, Kuthuparamba , Kannur District - 670643 [Pan:Aabak3157C] Vs. Ito Ward 1 & Tps, Kanniur . ….. …..Respondent Appellant By: Shri. Arun Raj, Adv Respondent By Smt . Leena Lal, Snr,Ar Date Of Hearing: 05 .06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.06.2025 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S. 140(4B) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961Dated 18.06.2024 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2018–19. 2. Against The Assessment Order, The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before The Cit(Appeals), Nfac. However, The Assessee Was Not Served Any Notice Of Hearing Nor A Copy Of The Order Passed By The Cit(A), Nfac. Further, No Alert Or Sms Notification Was Received

For Appellant: Shri. Arun Raj, Adv

Section 144Section 270A

remanded back to the file of the CIT(A), NFAC, with directions to dispose of the matter after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. We, after considering the rival submissions and material on record, find it appropriate to remand the matter to the file

Lighthouse Communities Foundation, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 494/PUN/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandralighthouse Communities Foundation Cit (Exemption), Pune The Lighthouse Complex, Spicer Vs. College Road, Pune City, Aundh T.S. S.O, Pune – 411007 Pan: Aagcp0711L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Neelesh Khandelwal Department By : Shri Vishwas S. Mundhe Date Of Hearing : 12-06-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13-06-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas S. Mundhe

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

assessee is holding a valid registration u/s 12A of the I.T. Act, 1961. Needless to say the Ld. CIT(E) shall give due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the application as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly

M/S. B.R. Dutta, Rampurhat, Birbhum vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), Suri

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

ITA 29/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jun 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddym/S B R Dutta Vs Ito, Ward-3(1), Suri-731101 Shibtalla Para, Rampurhat, Birbhum-731224 Pan No. :Aahfb 7626 E (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri A.K.Tibrewal, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 08.11.2024 Passed For Assessment Year 2014-15, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. That The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs. 13,60,796 Made By Ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Suri Invoking The Provisions Of Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For Failure Of The Assessee To Deduct Tax At Source On The Payments Made To Tata Capital Financial Services Limited Although The Said Tata Capital Financial Services Limited Had Declared The Receipt Of Income In Their Return Of Income & Paid Taxes Thereon. 2. That The Impugned Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Against Law & Facts Of The Case. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Was Filed Return Of Income Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.3,90,520/-. The Assessee Is A Wholesaler/Distributor Of Fertilizer, Pesticides & Maintains Regular Books Of A/Cs. Which Is Audited U/S. 44Ab Of The 1.T. Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Debited As Amount Of 13,60,796/- To The Profit & Loss A/C. For Payment Of 2

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tibrewal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kallol Mistry, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 201(1)Section 40Section 44A

ITANo.29/KOL/2025 back to the file of ld. Assessing Officer to examine this issue afresh and pass appropriate speaking order after providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before

Anil Kumar Agarwala, Darjeeling vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Siliguri

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

ITA 254/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyanil Kumar Agarwal, Vs Ito, Ward-1(1), Siliguri Ground Floor, Dhanotia Bhawan, Nehru Road, Siliguri, Darjeeling-734005 Pan No. :Acfpa 3408 H (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri L.N.Dash, Addl. Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13/06/2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri L.N.Dash, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 147

file of ld. CIT(A) with a direction to dispose off the case of the assessee on merits after providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before

Shambhu Dasgupta, Dalkhola vs. Income Tax Officer, Raiganj

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

ITA 221/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.221/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Shambhu Dasgupta Vs Income Tax Officer, It Office, Sbi Building, Subhaspally, Dalkhola, Karnojhora, Raiganj, Karandighi, Uttar Dinajpur, West Bengal-733201 Pan No. : Ciwpd 4351 D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Chandan Sanghai, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac Delhi Dated 18.11.2024 Passed For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, On Perusal Of The Appeal Record, I Find That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Filed Belatedly By 10 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported With An Affidavit Stating Sufficient Reasons For Delay In Filing The Appeal. In The Said Affidavit, The Assessee Has Sworn That The Assessee Was Suffering From Some Health Issues From 04.01.2025 To 17.01.2025 & Was Under Medical Treatment During This Period, Which Caused The Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal Within The Stipulated Period. In Support Of The Same, The Assessee Has Also Enclosed Medical Certificate. Ld. Sr. Dr Also Did Not Raise Any Objection To Condone The Delay. Considering The Facts

For Appellant: Shri Chandan Sanghai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 69A

back to the file of ld. AO with a direction to dispose off the case of the assessee on merits after providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before

Harendra Kumar Saha, Coochbehar vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Now Ward 2(1), Coochbehar

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

ITA 178/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyharendra Kumar Saha, Vs Ito, Ward-2(2), Coochbehar Chhat Jaygir Chilakhana (Now, Ito Ward-2(1), Balapukuri, Tufanganj, Coochbehar) Coochbehar, West Bengal Pan No. :Eplps 8614 Q (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Jcit Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13/06/2025

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Adhikary, JCIT Sr. DR

Section 144

Perumal Ananthakumar, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-22(1), Tambaram

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

ITA 831/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.831/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2015-16 Perumal Ananthakumar, Income Tax Officer, No.144 Gst Road, Chromepet, Non-Corporate Ward-22(1) Chennai-600 044. Chennai [Pan: Aigpa0836Q] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri N.Madhavan, Rtd, Addl.Cit प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri N.Madhavan, Rtd, Addl.CITFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT

available under Rule-46A. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and direct him to readjudicate afresh after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It shall bounden on the assessee to comply all the statutory notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A). Any non-compliace

M/S. Ahimsa Walk, Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

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

ITA 830/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.830/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: - M/S.Ahimsa Walk, The Commissioner Of Income Tax No.2/1, Vinayakar Koil Street, (Exemptions) Sastri Nagar, Saidapet, Chennai Chennai-600 015. [Pan: Aaeaa8950C] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assesseee By : Shri D.Segaran, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri G.Nandha Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Respondent: Shri G.Nandha Kumar, CIT

Section 12A

assessee informed that the Ld.CIT(E) has rejected its request for grant of registration u/s 12AB in Form 10AB, without affording it reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Ld.Counsel informed that the trust comprises a group of senior citizens who are conducting a monthly voluntary walk movement “ahimsa walk ... trust. The Ld. Counsel accordingly requested that the matter be remitted back to the Ld.CIT(E) for readjudication after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 3.0 Per contra, the Ld.DR relied upon the order of lower authorities. It was stated that the Ld.CIT(E ) has given

K864 Murali Chennampatti Primary Agriculture Co-Op Credit Society, Erode vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1) Erode, Erode

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA Nos

ITA 820/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.819/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2020-21 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.820/ Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2020-21 K864 Murali Chennampatti Primary The Income Tax Officer, Agriculture Co-Op Credit Society, Ward-2(1), Murali, Murali Post, Anthiyur Taluk, Erode Erode Dist, Tamil Nadu-638504. [Pan: Aabak3671M]

For Appellant: Ms.A.Vijayalakshmi, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 270ASection 80P

fresh adjudication. Accordingly, we set aside the order of lower authorities and direct the Ld.CIT(A) to readjudicate the matter after giving due opportunity of being heard and by passing a speaking order in accordance with the law. It shall be bounden upon the assessee to comply with

K864 Murali Chennampatti Primary Agriculture Co-Op Credit Society, Erode vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1) Erode, Erode

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA Nos

ITA 819/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Ms.A.Vijayalakshmi, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 270ASection 80P

Sree Taralabalu Jagadguru Education Society, R T Nagar, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 762/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year :2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Shreeraksha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 10(23)(C)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)

Page 2 of 6 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and facts in not providing a proper opportunity of being heard and ought to have sought for the exact format of the information required even though the notice was issued 18 months prior ... remitting this issue back to the file of AO for fresh consideration and decide the issue as per law after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case in support of its claim and not seek unnecessary adjournments in the matter

Shri Bhadreshwar Education and Social Welfare Trust, Bengaluru vs. ITO, Ward-1, Bijapur

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

ITA 700/BANG/2025[2020-221]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2025AY 2020-221

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 11Section 143(1)

issue is remitted back to the JAO (Jurisdictional Assessing Officer) for examination in terms of above and JAO is directed to give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and assessee is directed to substantiate its case and not seek unnecessary adjournments, for early disposal of the case