← 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

Hemant Dahyalal Bhatt, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2012–13 to 2016–17 are allowed, and appeals for assessment years 2017–18 and 2018–19 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7909/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10(14)Section 10(14)(ii)Section 144Section 153ASection 24

appellant's family members. 3. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that both the assessment orders and the appellate orders have been opportunity of being heard. He submitted that the assessee was under incarceration for a prolonged duration exceeding five years, being implicated in proceedings connected with the search ... bedrock of fair adjudication, mandate that no person should be condemned unheard, and that adjudication must be preceded by affording reasonable and meaningful opportunity of being heard. 8.2 In view of these peculiar facts and circumstances, and in order to ensure that the assessee is not prejudiced on account

Hemant Dahyalal Bhatt, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2012–13 to 2016–17 are allowed, and appeals for assessment years 2017–18 and 2018–19 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7908/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10(14)Section 10(14)(ii)Section 144Section 153ASection 24

appellant's family members. 3. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that both the assessment orders and the appellate orders have been opportunity of being heard. He submitted that the assessee was under incarceration for a prolonged duration exceeding five years, being implicated in proceedings connected with the search ... bedrock of fair adjudication, mandate that no person should be condemned unheard, and that adjudication must be preceded by affording reasonable and meaningful opportunity of being heard. 8.2 In view of these peculiar facts and circumstances, and in order to ensure that the assessee is not prejudiced on account

Hemant Dahyalal Bhatt, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2012–13 to 2016–17 are allowed, and appeals for assessment years 2017–18 and 2018–19 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7907/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10(14)Section 10(14)(ii)Section 144Section 153ASection 24

appellant's family members. 3. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that both the assessment orders and the appellate orders have been opportunity of being heard. He submitted that the assessee was under incarceration for a prolonged duration exceeding five years, being implicated in proceedings connected with the search ... bedrock of fair adjudication, mandate that no person should be condemned unheard, and that adjudication must be preceded by affording reasonable and meaningful opportunity of being heard. 8.2 In view of these peculiar facts and circumstances, and in order to ensure that the assessee is not prejudiced on account

Crimson Interactive Private Limited, Mumbai vs. A/DCIT-4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7309/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (SR. D.R.)
Section 14ASection 250

appropriate to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice it to say, by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee and considering the facts/arguments raised by the Assessee and the documents to be filed again, as the Assessee undertakes

Pooja Vijay Devnani, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. Income Tax Officer, Piramal Chambers, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals under consideration are allowed for statistical purposes, in the above terms

ITA 7139/MUM/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Anirudh Dave - CAFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, (CIT D.R.)
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 250

remand the instant case to the file of the learned Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice it to say by affording an reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and subject to deposit of Rs.11,000/- in the Revenue Department under “other heads” within 15 days from the date

Pooja Vijay Devnani, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. Income Tax Officer, Piramal Chambers, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals under consideration are

ITA 7138/MUM/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 250

remand the instant case to the file of the learned Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice it to say by affording an reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and subject to deposit of Rs.11,000/- in the Revenue Department under “other heads” within 15 days from the date

Bhoomi Home Towns, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Thane

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

ITA 6057/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

after duly considering the evidence furnished by the assessee. Needless to say, the Ld.CIT(A) shall grant the assessee proper and effective opportunity of being heard and the assessee is also directed to cooperate in the appellate proceedings. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Publicis Communication Private Limited As Successor to Capital Advertising Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle 8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2482/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2011-12 Publicis Communications The Deputy Private Limited, [As A Commissioner Of Income Successor To Erstwhile Tax, Circle-3(1), Capital Advertising Private [Now The Deputy Limited], Commissioner Of 15Th Floor, Urmi Estate, Tower Vs. Income-Tax, Circle A, 95, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, 8(2)(1), Mumbai Lower Parel (West), On Account Of Merger], Mumbai – 400013. Room No. 479, 4Th Floor, Pan-Aabca5234G Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Marg, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ca Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (Sr. D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 19.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.02.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.09.2015, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2011-12. 2. In The Instant Case, The Ao Vide Assessment Order Dated 28.03.2014 Has Made The Additions Of Rs.18,00,000/- & 2 Publicis Communications Private Limited, [As A Successor To Erstwhile Capital Advertising Private Limited] Rs.5,00,000/- On Account Of Disallowance Qua Payment Made To M/S. Publicis Communications Pvt. Ltd. (Pcpl) & M/S. Korn/Ferry International Pvt. Ltd. For The Prior Period Expense Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (SR. D.R.)
Section 250

case is accordingly remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice it to say, by affording an reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 3 Publicis Communications Private Limited, [as a successor to erstwhile Capital Advertising Private Limited] 6. We clarify that the Assessee would

Firstrand Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Comm. of Income Tax-Circle-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2502/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Firstrand Bank Limited The Assistant Commissioner Of C-53, G-Block, 5 Th Floor, Income-Tax, Tcg Financial Centre, Circle-2(3)(1), Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai Vs. Bandra (East)., Mumbai -400051 (Pan: Aabcf1632P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Paras Savla, Advocate Revenue : Shri Annavaram K, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Final Assessment Order Passed Pursuant To The Directions Of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel- 1, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Drp/F/144C(5)/2022- 23/1043517868(1), Dated 22.06.2022, Passed U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Paras Savla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram K, Sr. DR
Section 144C(5)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

list of comparables for the purpose of arriving at ALP of this transaction. Ld. TPO shall carry out this verification after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue in accordance of law, scope of verification shall remain confined strictly to the two aspects

Md Educational Society, Gurgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6422/DEL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

Section 10Section 154Section 2Section 250

That the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC erred in passing an order u/s 154 without giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee for explaining bills and voucher which was made. 10. That the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC of Income tax erred

Sanjeev Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 35(5), Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi

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

ITA 5496/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarsanjeev Aggarwal, C/O. Sbg & Co. Chartered Accountants, 9, Atta-Ur-Rehman Lane, Civil Lines, Delhi 110054 ...... Appellant Pan: Aaepa-9767-A Vs. Ito, Ward 35(5), Delhi 110002 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr.DR

remit the issues back to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the same afresh, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Ld. DR raised no objection to the same. The assessee is directed to fully cooperate with the Assessing Officer during

Poonam Arora, Kashipur vs. Assessment Unit, Haldwani

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 16/DDN/2026[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun11 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shrisanjay Awasthistay Application No.11/Ddn/2026 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2023-24 बनाम Poonam Arora, Assessment Unit, Gram Kharmasa, Kashipur, (U.S. Nagar), Vs. It Department, Uttarakhand. Ao, Circle 2(1)(1), Haldwani, Pan No.Ajmpa5746J Uttarakhand. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.16/Ddn/2026 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2023-24 बनाम Poonam Arora, Assessment Unit, Gram Kharmasa, Kashipur, (U.S. Nagar), Vs. It Department, Uttarakhand. Ao, Circle 2(1)(1), Haldwani, Pan No.Ajmpa5746J Uttarakhand. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 144Section 250Section 251(1)Section 251(1)(a)

aside the impugned order and direct that the Ld. CIT(A) would take up adjudication on merits, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 5. Stay Application No.11/DDN/2026: since the main appeal has been decided, hence

Smt. Shama Parveen, Roorkee vs. 1.CIT(A)& 2) I.T.O Roorkee, Roorkee

In the result, the Appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 242/DDN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun11 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Sanjay Awasthishama Parveen, V Union Of India/Cit(A)/Ito W/O Sabir, 113, Pathanpura, S Roorke, Uttarakhand Roorkee, Uttarakhand Pan: Crqpp5965A Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Tilak Raj, Adv Revenue By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11/02/2026

Section 144BSection 147

Assessee preferred the present Appeal. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has provided no opportunity of being heard to the Assessee and in violation of principals of natural justice, dismissed the appeal of the Assessee. 4. Per contra, the Ld. Ld. Departmental ... with a direction to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the Appeals afresh on its merits in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 3 Smt. Shama Parveen Vs. CIT(A) 6. In the result, the Appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical

Doiwala Kisaan Sewa Sahkari Samiti, Doiwala vs. ITO/DCIT/ACIT, Cental Circle, Dehradun

In the result, both these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 235/DDN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun11 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.234 & 235/Ddn/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20 बनाम Doiwala Kisaan Sewa Sahkari Samiti, Ito/Dcit/Acit, 23, Doiwala, S.O. Doiwala, Vs. Central Circle, Dehradun. Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Pan No.Aabtd5810E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 147Section 250Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

expect the assessee to be prompt in presenting the facts before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) would give ample opportunity of being heard. 4. In the result, both these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 11.02.2026 (YOGESH KUMAR

Doiwala Kisaan Sewa Sahkari Samiti, Doiwala vs. ITO/DCIT/ACIT, Cental Circle Dehradun, Dehradun

In the result, both these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 234/DDN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.234 & 235/Ddn/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20 बनाम Doiwala Kisaan Sewa Sahkari Samiti, Ito/Dcit/Acit, 23, Doiwala, S.O. Doiwala, Vs. Central Circle, Dehradun. Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Pan No.Aabtd5810E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 147Section 250Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

expect the assessee to be prompt in presenting the facts before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) would give ample opportunity of being heard. 4. In the result, both these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 11.02.2026 (YOGESH KUMAR

Mahendra Ashok Thakur, Roorkee vs. Commissioner of Income Appeal, Dehradun

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

ITA 227/DDN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun11 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Sanjay Awasthimahendra Ashok Thakur Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax 1, Loni Rathata, Ahmednagar, Appeal, 2Nd Floor E-Ramp, Maharasthra Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Pan: Advpt1145K New Delhi-110003, New Delhi

Section 144Section 144BSection 147

restore the issue to the file of the A.O. for de-novo assessment. Needless to say, the A.O. shall provide opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before passing the 3 Mahendra Ashok Thakur Vs. CIT(A) assessment order in accordance with law. The Assessee is also directed to participate

Sanjay Rawat, Dehradun vs. ACIT Central Cricle, Dehradun

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 95/DDN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun11 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] Ita Nos.90, 95 & 104/Ddn/2024 [Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2013-14 & 2013-14] Sanjay Rawat Vs Acit 18S Ats Colony, Central Circle Sahastradhara Road, Dehradun, Dehradun, Uttarakhand-248001 Uttarakhand Pan-Ahopr5244E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv. Shri Shivam Garg, Adv. & Shri Raghav Sharma, Ca Revenue By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am :

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 271

well as on facts in affirming the order of the AO which is in violation of principle of natural justice as no adequate opportunity of being heard and opportunity of cross- examining the persons upon whose statement the AO relied upon was provided to the assessee. 7. On the facts

Sanjay Rawat, Dehradun vs. ACIT Central Circle, Dehradun

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 90/DDN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun11 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] Ita Nos.90, 95 & 104/Ddn/2024 [Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2013-14 & 2013-14] Sanjay Rawat Vs Acit 18S Ats Colony, Central Circle Sahastradhara Road, Dehradun, Dehradun, Uttarakhand-248001 Uttarakhand Pan-Ahopr5244E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv. Shri Shivam Garg, Adv. & Shri Raghav Sharma, Ca Revenue By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am :

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 271

well as on facts in affirming the order of the AO which is in violation of principle of natural justice as no adequate opportunity of being heard and opportunity of cross- examining the persons upon whose statement the AO relied upon was provided to the assessee. 7. On the facts

Sh.Sanjay Rawat, Dehradun vs. ACIT, Circle, Dehradun

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 104/DDN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun11 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] Ita Nos.90, 95 & 104/Ddn/2024 [Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2013-14 & 2013-14] Sanjay Rawat Vs Acit 18S Ats Colony, Central Circle Sahastradhara Road, Dehradun, Dehradun, Uttarakhand-248001 Uttarakhand Pan-Ahopr5244E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv. Shri Shivam Garg, Adv. & Shri Raghav Sharma, Ca Revenue By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am :

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 271

well as on facts in affirming the order of the AO which is in violation of principle of natural justice as no adequate opportunity of being heard and opportunity of cross- examining the persons upon whose statement the AO relied upon was provided to the assessee. 7. On the facts

Jain Enterprises, Bhilai, Durg vs. PCIT, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as above

ITA 187/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 187/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19) Jain Enterprises, Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 87-B, Light Industrial Area, Raipur-1, Central Revenue Building, Bhilai-490026, C.G. Civil Lines, Raipur, 492001, C.G. Pan: Aagfj3469G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri S. R. Rao, Advocate राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Ram Tiwari, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 11/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2018-19 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.03.2025 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1 (‘Pcit’) Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).

For Appellant: Shri S. R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263

direction to pass a fresh assessment order in a speaking manner after making all necessary enquiries required and after providing due and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after considering all the submissions, etc. made and counter-reply submitted by the assessee in a fair and judicious