← 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

Pullokaran Varghese Nixon, Chalakudy vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(3), Thrissur

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

ITA 808/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.A.Gopalakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 69

observations, we restore this matter back to the file of the AO for examining afresh. Needless to say, the AO shall afford meaningful opportunity of being heard to the assessee, before passing any order. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order

The Centre for Management Development, Thiruvananthapuram vs. ACIT (Exemption), Thiruvananthapuram

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

ITA 765/COCH/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Sherry S.Oommen, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR

days happened before him and direct him to decide the appeal on merits. Needless to say, the CIT(A) shall give meaningful opportunity of being heard to the assessee, before passing any order. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

Discovery, Kannur vs. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department, Income Tax Department

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

ITA 738/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.R.Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 148Section 148ASection 68Section 69

meet the withdrawals then no addition is called for under section 69 of the Act. Needless to say, the AO shall afford meaningful opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 30th

Nishant Goyal, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for Statistical Purposes

ITA 1081/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1081/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Sh. Nishant Goyal, Ito, बनाम House No.3135, Ward-2(1), Sector 20-D, Chandigarh Vs. Chandigarh 160020 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aqmpg0609D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Rahul Khurana, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

Form 35 and during the course of appellant proceedings. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not granting reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant before dismissing the appeal in limine. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned assessment deserves ... quashed having been framed in haste and without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard. 3. At the very outset, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee pointed out that in this case the appellate order was passed by the ld. CIT(A), dismissing the appeal as there was a delay

Kaushik Narsinhbhai Ragvani, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward 2(2)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2144/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 2143 & 2144/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year 2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 690Section 69ASection 69C

facts and circumstances of the case. 3.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not granting opportunity of being heard through video conferencing. 3.2 That in the facts and / in the law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that granting opportunity ... money, which is not permissible in law. 4.1 The Ld CITIA) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in net granting opportunity of being heard through video conferencing. 4.2 That in the facts and in the law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that granting opportunity

Kaushik Narsinhbhai Ragvani, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward 2(2)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2143/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 2143 & 2144/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year 2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 690Section 69ASection 69C

facts and circumstances of the case. 3.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not granting opportunity of being heard through video conferencing. 3.2 That in the facts and / in the law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that granting opportunity ... money, which is not permissible in law. 4.1 The Ld CITIA) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in net granting opportunity of being heard through video conferencing. 4.2 That in the facts and in the law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that granting opportunity

Mr Vikas Jayram Bhukan, Pune vs. ITO Ward 12(3), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is allowed

ITA 2483/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2483/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Mr. Vikas Jayram Bhukan, Vs. Ito, Ward-12(3), Pune. Survey No.34, House No.80, Azad Chowk, Opposite Ramma, Lohegaon, Near Gram Panchayat, Pune- 411047. Pan : Alqpb0811K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani Revenue By : Shri Kumar Manish Singha Date Of Hearing : 08.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.09.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstance Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions & Scheme Of The Act It Be Held That The Notice For Levy Of Penalty Was Defective Since No Specific Charge Of Violation, Was Made Out In The Notice & Thus The Consequent Penalty So Levied Be Kindly Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Manish Singha
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

assessment order which he admitted. Section 274 prohibits imposition of penalty unless the assessee has been heard or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is admitted fact of the case that the respondent/assessee was heard by the Assessing Officer who passed the penalty order. The submissions

Munmun Nayak, Burdhwan vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Burdwan

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

ITA 948/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 948/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Munmun Nayak,………………………………………Appellant C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, “Sagar Mansion”, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite Nos. 202 & 203, Hare Street, Kolkata-700001, West Bengal [Pan:Aicpn6605L] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………….…………...Respondent Ward-2(2), Burdwan, Kachari Road, Court Compound, P.O. & P.S. Burdwan, Dist. Purba Bardhaman-713101, W.B, Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: April 30, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 30, 2025 O R D E R

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

principle of natural justice, and remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) with a direction to provide one more 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

Sangeetha Duraisamy, Salem vs. ITO, International Taxation Ward, Coimbatore

ITA 525/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.525/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2019-20 Sangeetha Duraisamy, The Income Tax Officer, No.2/369, Manjulam Pallam, International Taxation Ward, Vellalapatti, Coimbatore. Salem, Tamil Nadu-636 012 [Pan: Etspd8813H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri P.M.Kathir, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.05.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri P.M.Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 147Section 56Section 56(2)(x)Section 69

provide all necessary details to the Ld.AO and any non- compliance shall be adversely viewed. The assessee shall also be entitled for due opportunity of being heard. All the grounds of appeal raised on this issue are allowed for statistical purposes. 6.0 The next issue raised by the assessee through

Trident Coatings Pvt.Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 Trident Coatings Private Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of No.1/590, Gst Road, Income Tax, Vandalur, Corporate Circle-3(1), Tamil Nadu-600 048.. Chennai [Pan: Aacct3000A]

For Appellant: S/Shri S.Sridhar & G.Tarun AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri N.Rajakumar, Addl.CIT
Section 40

Accordingly, we set aside the order of the lower authorities and direct the Ld.AO to adjudicate the matter de novo after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall be required to be comply with all the statutory notices issued by the Ld.AO. Any non- compliance

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Chennai vs. M. Mahadevan, Chennai

ITA 1826/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1824/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1825/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1826/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2019-20 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. M.Mahadevan, No.24, Park Avenue Street, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai-600 030. [Pan: Aajpm5888R] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri G.Gireesh, C.A प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.C.Vatchala, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : The Below Mentioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Appellant Revenue For Ay-2013-14, Ay-2014-15 & 2019-20 Contesting The Order Of Ld. First Appellate Authority Indicated Column-E, Herein Below:- S. No. A Appeal Nos. B Ays C Appellant D Cit(A) Order Details E Respondent F 1

For Respondent: Ms.C.Vatchala, CIT

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH: CHENNAI श्री यस यस विश्वनेत्र रवि

Deputy Commissioner of Inocme Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Chennai vs. M. Mahadevan, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are decided as under:-

ITA 1825/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1824/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1825/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1826/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri G.Gireesh, C.AFor Respondent: Ms.C.Vatchala, CIT

shall be required to produce all the documents in this regard before Ld.AO and the Ld.AO shall pass an order after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee on the issue of allowance of credit of foreign taxes. All the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant Revenue ... accordance with law, by taking the valuation figures on 30.06.2018 as base figures. The Ld. AO shall be required to give due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee would be bounden to comply with the statutory notices of the Ld.AO. All the grounds of appeal raised

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. M. Mahadevan, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are decided as under:-

ITA 1824/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1824/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1825/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1826/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri G.Gireesh, C.AFor Respondent: Ms.C.Vatchala, CIT

shall be required to produce all the documents in this regard before Ld.AO and the Ld.AO shall pass an order after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee on the issue of allowance of credit of foreign taxes. All the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant Revenue ... accordance with law, by taking the valuation figures on 30.06.2018 as base figures. The Ld. AO shall be required to give due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee would be bounden to comply with the statutory notices of the Ld.AO. All the grounds of appeal raised

Amaravathi Basavana Gowda, Hospet vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Hospet

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

ITA 202/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Ms. Sheela M G, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy, JCIT-DR
Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 234FSection 250Section 69A

appeal and confirming the impugned addition of 248,92,254 under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act,1961 without affording proper opportunity of being heard. 7. Lack of Consideration for Appellant's Circumstances The learned CIT(A), NFAC failed to appreciate that the appellant is an illiterate and agriculturist

Jsw Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 5(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2045/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2045/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-18) M/S Jsw Infrastructure V/S. Dcit, Circle 5(2)(1), Ltd. बिधम Mumbai 5Th Floor, Jsw Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Maharshi Bandra Kurla Complex, Karve Road, New Marine Bandra (E), S.O. Mumbai- Lines, Churchgate, 400051 Mumbai-400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcj6721D Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik
Section 14ASection 250

case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in passing the ex-parte order without granting sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming

Sterling Green Power Solutions Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1908/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrysmt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2022-23

For Appellant: Ms. Sonalee GodboleFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar. Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 250

order and consequently remanding the case to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. Thus, the case is remanding to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, accordingly. 4. In the result, appeal filed

Jaguar Services Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 1(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 113/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Jeet KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Chandekar
Section 147Section 263

Assessing Officer is also directed to conduct requisite enquiries along the line discussed above and frame assessment order accordingly. In the process, adequate opportunities of being heard should be accorded to the assessee to file submission, details and to furnish their explanation. Order under Section ... PCIT has given general directions to the Assessing Officer to carry out requisite inquires and frame denovo assessment after granting the Assessee adequate opportunity of being heard, the same run contrary to specific direction to bring to tax 25% of the alleged bogus purchases in the hands of the Assessee

Ascot Realty Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1-, Thane

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

ITA 4644/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh MarwahaFor Respondent: Shri. Ram Krishn Kedia (SR. DR.)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Furnishing Inaccurate particulars of Income'and for 'Deemed concealment of income', where all three connotations have different meanings in law, showing improper opportunity of being heard and non application of mind on the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case and therefore, the impugned order passed deserves ... income but the penalty was levied under the other limb 1.e. for under reporting of income, as such amounting to improper opportunity of being heard awarded to the assessee, in view of the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held

Ascot Realty Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -1, Thane

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

ITA 4643/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh MarwahaFor Respondent: Shri. Ram Krishn Kedia (SR. DR.)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Furnishing Inaccurate particulars of Income'and for 'Deemed concealment of income', where all three connotations have different meanings in law, showing improper opportunity of being heard and non application of mind on the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case and therefore, the impugned order passed deserves ... income but the penalty was levied under the other limb 1.e. for under reporting of income, as such amounting to improper opportunity of being heard awarded to the assessee, in view of the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held

Yashvardhan Gokuldas Binani, Mumbai vs. ITO 17 (3) (5), Mumbai

ITA 4133/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kirit SanghviFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

appeal memorandum in Form 35 and the written submissions 2 Assessment Year 2012-2013 filed, the Assessee contended that adequate opportunity of being heard was denied to the Assessee and that the transaction was a regular commercial transaction not attracting the provisions contained in Section ... contended that the funds were not received by the Assessee, and therefore, the same could not be taxed in his hands. Since adequate opportunity of being heard was not granted to the Assessee, proper representation could not be made before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). 7. In response