“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

Ravindra Balasaheb Raykar, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Pune

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

ITA 284/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Yash Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(a)Section 249(4)(b)

erred in invoking the provisions of section 249(4) and dismissing the appeal petition of appellant without providing an opportunity of being heard. 2. In facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in interpretation of facts that the return of income filed

Kali Bari Samiti, Pune vs. C.I.T (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 245/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 May 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrakali Bari Samiti Cit (Exemption), Pune S.No.254B, Park Road, Vs. Pune – 411020 Pan: Aaatk7059B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sarang S Gudhate Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 08-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sarang S GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

application shall be liable to be rejected and the registration /approval shall also be liable to be cancelled. The assessee was also given opportunity of being heard vide the said notice. However, the assessee neither submitted the above mentioned compliance nor availed the opportunity of being heard. The assessee ... requested to submit compliance by 22/10/2024. The assessee was also given opportunity of being heard vide the said notice. The notice was duly served on the assessee through e-portal and email. However, the assessee neither furnished its compliance to the show cause notice nor availed the opportunity of being

Deepak Kapurchand Shaha Kothari, Raigad vs. ITO Ward-1 Panvel, Panvel East

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

ITA 1084/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Mr. Mohammed Shahab KhanFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde, DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

matter may be set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A)/ AO for fresh adjudication on merits after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A). He submitted ... file of the Ld. AO for deciding the impugned issues afresh on merits in accordance with facts and law after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the Ld. AO on the date fixed for hearing and make

Upashan Debnath, Nadia vs. ITO, Ward 41(3), Nadia

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 378/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.378/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Upashan Debnath……..………………………………………...….……….Appellant Vill. Nagarukhra, P.S.Haringhata, Haringhata, Nadia, West Bengal – 741257. [Pan: Axfpd1830M] Vs. Ito, Ward-41(3), Kolkata.………….....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Roychowdhury, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 21, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeals, Addl/Jcit(A)-12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’]. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 266 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Such Delay Explaining Reasons For The Delay. We, After Perusing The Petition Made In The Application, Satisfy That There Were Bona Fide & Sufficient Reasons For Such Delay. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay & Admit This Appeal For Adjudication. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 11.01.2017 For The Assessment Year 2015- 16 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,59,440/-. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act & Selected For

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 44A

whole issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to re-examine the matter on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to strictly comply with the notices which will be issued

Dulal Bhattacharjee, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle 28, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 369/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.369/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dulal Bhattacharjee…..………………………………………...….……….Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocate Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Aedpb8602E] Vs. Acit, Circle-28, Kolkata.………….....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 21, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.01.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeals, Addl/Jcit(A), Bhopal [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’]. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 26.09.2015 For The Assessment Year 2015- 16 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.15,84,310/-. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass Relating To The Issue Of Income/Capital Gains On Sale Of Land Or Building, Sale Of Property Mismatch, Sundry Creditors & Sales Turnover Mismatch. Thereafter, Statutory Notices U/S 142(1) & 143(2) Of The Act Were Issued To The Assessee & The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Duly Complied To The Notices. During The Assessment Proceedings, It Was Found That The

Section 142(1)Section 43C

Aristro Fincorp Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 364/KOL/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2025

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.364/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Aristro Fincorp Pvt. Ltd………………………………………...….……….Appellant 21, Parsee Church Street, Opp. 18 Ezra Street, Kol-1. [Pan: Aaecs0680H] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(3), Kolkata.………….....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agrawal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 21, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.12.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeals, Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’]. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.09.2014 For The Assessment Year 2014-15 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,51,050/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act As The Information Received From The Dgit(Inv.), Mumbai Under Project Falcon Regarding Coordinated & Premediated Trading On The Bombay Stock Exchange By Engaging In Reversal Trades In Illiquid Stock Options Resulting In Non-Genuine Business Loss/Gains To The Beneficiary Assessees & That The Present Assessee Is A Party To Such Manipulation. From The Data Made Available Under Project Falcon On The

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Ram Kaur Singh, Kolkata vs. Ward 30(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 359/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.359/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ram Kaur Singh……..………………………………………...….……….Appellant 8, Mansarala Lane, Khiderpore, Kolkata – 700023. [Pan: Alhps2735G] Vs. Ito, Ward-30(1), Kolkata.………….....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Navans Shah, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 21, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeals, Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’]. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 264 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Such Delay Explaining Reasons For The Delay. We, After Perusing The Petition Made In The Application, Satisfy That There Were Bona Fide & Sufficient Reasons For Such Delay. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay & Admit This Appeal For Adjudication. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 11.01.2018 For The Assessment Year 2017- 18 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,78,230/-. Subsequently, The Case Of

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 69A

Compact Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle 3(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 200/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.200/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Compact Agencies Pvt. Ltd……………………………………...….……….Appellant Room No.1A, 20B, West Bengal, East India House, Bbd Bag, West Bengal-700069. [Pan: Aadcc6607K] Vs. Dcit/Acit, Circle-3(1), Kolkata.….....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Raja Sengupta, Cit, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 21, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.08.2024 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’]. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 88 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Such Delay Explaining Reasons For The Delay. We, After Perusing The Petition Made In The Application, Satisfy That There Were Bona Fide & Sufficient Reasons For Such Delay. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay & Admit This Appeal For Adjudication. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 By Declaring Total Income As Nil. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 251(2)Section 69Section 69C

file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to re-examine the case of the assessee on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to strictly comply with the notices which will be issued by the Assessing Officer and furnish requisite documents

Swadeshi Dealer Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2321/KOL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiswadeshi Dealer Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata P-4, N.H.B.A Road, Kolkata Pan No. :Aancs 2196 P (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Prakash Nath Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/05/2025

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Nath Barnwal, CIT-DR

submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without providing any sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It was the prayer that the matter may be restored to the file of ld. AO) to decide the issue involved ... restoring the issues in the appeal to the file of ld. AO for adjudicating afresh after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. However, looking to the non-cooperation of the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings even after issuance of notices to the assessee

Al Madrasatul Quaderiatul Mustarshidia, Birbhum vs. CIT (Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 1810/KOL/2024[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2025AY 2024-2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1810/Kol/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2024-2025) Al Madrasatul Quaderiatul Vs Cit(Exemption), Kolkata Mustarshidia, Village : Kodoa, Mia Para, Birbhum, Bahutali, West Bengal-731222 Pan No. :Aahta 5332 Q (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Praveen Kishore, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.07.2024 Passed By The Ld. Cit(Exemption), Kolkata, In Din & Notice No.Itba/Exm/F/Exm45/2024-25/1067193293(1) For The Assessment Year 2024-2025 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Praveen Kishore, Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. In This Appeal, The Assesse Has Raised The Grounds In Regard To Not Granting Approval U/S.10(23C) Of The Act By The Ld. Cit(E) Holding That There Is No Irrevocability Clause In The Trust Deed & The Assessee Trust Could Not Prove The Genuineness Of Cash Deposited In The Bank. 4. Ld Sr Dr Submitted That Proper Opportunities Were Allowed & The Assessee Could Not Produce The Documents As Required Before The Ld.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT-DR

Section 10

this appeal are restored to the file of the ld.CIT(E) for readjudication of the issues afresh after granting the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard. The assesse is directed to provide the details as pointed out by the ld. CIT(E) in the readjudication proceedings positively

M/S. Subhiksha Hind Vidhyalaya, Mayiladuthurai vs. CIT Exemptions, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 126/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri N.R.Govindarajan, C.A &For Respondent: Shri V. Justin, CIT

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

order passed by the Ld. CIT(E) and remit the matter to his file to decide the application afresh, after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee in ITA Nos.125 & 126/Chny/2025 4-7 accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the proceedings and appear

M/S. Subhiksha Hindi Vidhyalaya, Mayiladuthurai vs. CIT, Exmetions, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 125/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri N.R.Govindarajan, C.A &For Respondent: Shri V. Justin, CIT

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

Krishnappa Gowder Kalyanasundaram, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore

Appeals are dismissed confirming the common impugned order passed by the Tribunal

ITA 1678/CHNY/2024[AY 2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271ASection 274

should not be made under section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. If you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity of being heard in person or through authorized representative, you may show cause in writing on or before the said date which shall be considered before

Deepak Kumar Jain, Bhayender vs. Income Tax Officer, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 866/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss. Padmavathy Sdeepak Kumar Jain Vs Income-Tax Officer Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, 16Z, Wagle 11, Om Shree Complex, New Goldan Road, Near Mira Industrial Estate, Thane-400 604 Bhayandar Road, Bhayandar (East)-401 105 Pan : Adipj1661R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Thakwani(SR DR)

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

merits of the case, so as to avoid any prejudice in the appellate proceedings. Needless to say, theassessee shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the set- aside proceedings. Simultaneously, the assessee is expected to act diligently and extend full cooperation to ensure the expeditious disposal

Music Broadcast Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2212/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 154

verify the claim of assessee in accordance with law. Needless to say that 8 ITA No.2212/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2017-18 Music Broadcast Limited proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. Accordingly the grounds raised by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. In the result

Usha Marazban Pithawalla, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Navi Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2095/MUM/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 144Section 144BSection 147

Pithawalla Bandra, Mumbai. ” 5 ITA No. 2095/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2014-15 Usha Marazban Pithawalla 2.1 He thus submitted that, assessee may be granted an opportunity of being heard and sought permission to file evidence in support of the claim disallowed by the authorities below. 2.2 On the contrary the Ld.DR submitted ... claim, and the Ld.AO shall verify the documents and considered the claim of assessee in accordance with law. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. Accordingly the grounds raised by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. 7 ITA No. 2095/Mum/2025

Punja Parbat Chaudhary, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 1097/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Hakani, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Ld. Sr.D.R

Section 250

exception case. Thus, the case is remanded to the file of the AO for decision afresh; suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 5. The Assessee is also directed to file the relevant documents/reply, as would be essentially required by the AO for proper

Zarina Foundation, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 6276/MUM/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Jigar Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Shri Mahendra Bishnoi -CIT DR

Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)

Exemptions) erred in law and facts in rejecting the application u's 10AB without granting the adequate opportunity of being heard and merely on technical glitch. 2. All the above grounds are independent and without prejudice to each other. 3. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, delete and modify ... Furthermore, the letter submitted by the assessee to the CPC highlighting the technical difficulty was not addressed. Thus, it is evident that reasonable opportunity of being heard was denied to the assessee. 5 ITA 6276 & 6276/Mum/2024 Zarina Trust The Ld. AR placed reliance on the decisions of the Co-ordinate

Sadhna Sharma, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Delhi

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

ITA 746/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Unit Sadhna Sharma, Income Tax G-1, 3/6, Krishna Vs. Department, Apartment, Sector-2, New Delhi. Rajendra Nagar, Uttar Pradesh Pan-Fxzps0007J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/05/2025

Section 250

appeal are restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits in accordance with law after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to participate in the appellate proceedings. With these directions, the appeal of the assessee

Late Sh. Raghuvir Singh (Through His Legal Heir Mr. Vijay Kumar), Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 43(2), Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5627/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roylate Sh. Raghuvir Singh Vs. Income Tax Officer, (Through His Legal Heir Mr. Vijay Ward 43(2) Kumar) Civic Centre, Minto Road, Rz-16, Prem Nagar, Minto Road, New Delhi, Phase-Ii, Nazafgarh, New Delhi – 110002 Opp. Police Station Delhi – 110043 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aydps7567F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vibhu Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 5

dispose of by remitting the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for consideration of the same afresh upon granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and upon considering the evidence on record or any other evidence which the assessee may choose to file