“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

Goel Pawan Kumar & Family (HUF), Sonipat vs. Income Tax Officer, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 5252/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Roshan Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Anand, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 147Section 148

Natural Justice: That the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the Ld. AO without giving the Appellant a fair opportunity of being heard and without considering the submissions and evidence provided. This is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice, rendering the reassessment proceedings

Oisca North India, New Delhi vs. CIT(A), NFAC

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3865/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Royoisca North India Vs. Cit(A) Nfac A-22, Okhla Industrial Ito, Ward Exemption Area, Phase-I, 2(4) Delhi New Delhi- 110020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaao0549D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. V.K. Tulsian, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 11(1)(c)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250(6)

decided afresh. Hence, the matter is remitted to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to dispose 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

Isr Exports Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 12(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 1956/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaisr Exports Private Limited, Vs. Ito, Ward 12 (4), D-1/24, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 057. (Pan : Aabci8032N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Ragini Handa, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.04.2025 Date Of Order : 21.05.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 15.05.2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar For The Assessee Brought To Our Notice That The Ld. Cit (A) Decided The Issue Against The Assessee By Observing That Assessee Has Not Pursued The Appeal Despite Being Granted Several Opportunities & The Details Are Given In The First Appellate Order & By Relying On Several Decisions, He Dismissed The Appeal. He Submitted That Ld. Cit (A) Has Not Decided The Issue On Merit & Prayed

For Appellant: Ms. Ragini Handa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

merit and prayed 2 that this issue may be remitted back to the ld. CIT(A) with the prayer to give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He submitted that there are reasons for assessee for not appearing before the first appellate authority. 3. On the other hand ... decided the issues on merit. Accordingly, in our considered view and in the interest of justice, assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard on merit. Therefore, we direct ld. CIT (A) to give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue on merit

Vinod Kohli, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle 35(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 896/DEL/2021[2012 - 2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Ms. Monalisa Maity, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 148(2)Section 292B

submissions and documentary evidences furnished by the Appellant before the Hon'ble CIT(A). 3. 2. The Appellant was not afforded a sufficient opportunity of being heard despite requesting for the same vide her written submission. 4. That the impugned addition amounting to Rs.8,61,000/- made to the income

ACIT, Circle- 17(1), New Delhi vs. Moser Baer Solar Systems Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 3653/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumaracit, Circle 17(1), Vs. Moser Baer Solar New Delhi Systems Pvt. Ltd. 43B, Phase-Iii, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi – 20 (Pan: Aaica0910C) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv., Shri NikunjFor Respondent: Sh. Choudhary N.C. Roy, Sr. DR

Section 37(1)

being submitted by the assessee and thereafter decide the same, as per law. Needless to add that the assessee should be given adequate opportunity of being heard. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court

M/S. Isha Kitchens, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Raipur

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of over aforesaid observations

ITA 243/RPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 243/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250

matter came up before the ITAT, it had failed to address the infirmity regarding the fact that the assessee was not afforded proper opportunity of being heard and the matter was dismissed ex-parte by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC which amounted to violation of principles of natural justice ... part of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In light of such decision, the petitioner ought to have been granted an opportunity of being heard which, partakes the characteristic of the fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 11. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay

Gursukh Energy India Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3 (1), Raipur

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of over aforesaid observations

ITA 238/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 238/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

Hotel Satlaj, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Raipur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 226/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.224, 225 & 226/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Hotel Satlaj Jail Road Kutchery Chowk, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aadfh3600A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 5

matter came up before the ITAT, it had failed to address the infirmity regarding the fact that the assessee was not afforded proper opportunity of being heard and the matter was dismissed ex- parte by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC which amounted to violation of principles of natural justice ... part of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In light of such decision, the petitioner ought to have been granted an opportunity of being heard which, partakes the characteristic of the fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 11. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay

Hotel Satlaj, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Raipur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 225/RPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 May 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 5

matter came up before the ITAT, it had failed to address the infirmity regarding the fact that the assessee was not afforded proper opportunity of being heard and the matter was dismissed ex- parte by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC which amounted to violation of principles of natural justice ... part of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In light of such decision, the petitioner ought to have been granted an opportunity of being heard which, partakes the characteristic of the fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 11. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay

Hotel Satlaj, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Raipur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 224/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 May 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 5

matter came up before the ITAT, it had failed to address the infirmity regarding the fact that the assessee was not afforded proper opportunity of being heard and the matter was dismissed ex- parte by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC which amounted to violation of principles of natural justice ... part of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In light of such decision, the petitioner ought to have been granted an opportunity of being heard which, partakes the characteristic of the fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 11. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay

Madhyani Builders, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of over aforesaid observations

ITA 189/RPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 189/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2022-23)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 256(6)Section 3Section 40b

Bhan Bai, Bhilai, Durg vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 124/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.124/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Smt. Bhan Bai H. No.257, Risali Basti, Newai Mill Para, Bhilai-490 006 (C.G.) Pan: Ayrpb7895B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 127Section 271(1)(c)

General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, transfer any case from ... Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner from whose jurisdiction the case is to be transferred may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, pass the order; (b) where

Late Vasantben Chandrakantbhai Raval L/H. Dushyantkumar C. Raval, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward 2 (2) (6), Rajkot

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

ITA 203/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.203/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2017-18 Dushyankumar C. Raval Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(6), Legal Heir Of Late Vasantben बनाम/ Rajkot, Income Tax Office, New Chandrakantbhai Raval Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Vatiaka, Rajkot- 45 B Panchawati, Street No.1, 360 001 Rajkot-360 003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bqqpr 1046 E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Hitesh Doriya, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh Doriya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-DR

Section 144(1)(b)Section 250

other materials brought on record. Considering the above facts, I note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). I note that the ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee’s case on merits based ... note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, I restore the matter

Rajeshbhai Karsanbhai Baldha, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward2(1)(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 186/RJT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.186/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2011-12 Rajeshbhai Karshanbhai Baldha Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1), Shreenathji Krupa, Nani Deli, Rajkot, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ Choravali Street, Jamkandorna Rajkot-360 001 Vs Rajkot- 360 405 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aoypb 2671 Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ajay Dholariya, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Dholariya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-DR

Section 144Section 250Section 69

note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, I restore the matter ... back to the file of Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, I deem it fit and proper to set aside the ITA No.186/Rjt/2025

Praful Arvindbhai Sankhavara, Rajkot vs. ITO Ward 1(2)(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 172/RJT/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 May 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.172/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2019-20 Praful Arvindbhai Sankhavara Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), At Pal: Lodhika, बनाम/ Rajkot, Income Tax Department, Rajkot - 360004 Vs Race Course, Ring Road, Rajkot- 360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Gsqps 8182 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Gaurang Khakhkhar, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Gaurang Khakhkhar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-DR

Section 147Section 250Section 69A

gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee Considering the above facts, I note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A) due to non receipt of notices. I note that Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed ... restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, I deem it fit and proper to set aside

Jitendrakumar Amritlal Kalidas Shah, Dubai vs. Ac / Dc (Int.Txn), Rajkot

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

ITA 153/RJT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.152 & 153/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2012-13 Jitendrakumar Amritlal Kalidas Shah Assistant Commissioner Of 1803 B-Rimal 2, Premises No. बनाम/ Income-Tax Officer, Circle-3 (1), 392140551392, Marsa Dubai – 215 Vs Rajkot/ Assistant Commissioner 394 Of Income-Tax International Taxation Ac/Dc(Int.Txn.) Rajkot, Amruta Estate, M.G. Road, Beside Girnar Cinema, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bkups 7510 Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-DR

Section 144Section 250

making compliance, the matter is restored back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh on merit, after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee. I find that after all justice not only to be done, it is seen to be done. Therefore, I set aside

Jitendrakumar Amritlal Kalidas Shah, Dubai vs. Ac / Dc (Int.Txn), Rajkot

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

ITA 152/RJT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 May 2025AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-DR

Section 144Section 250

Hemendrabhai Kantilal Parmar, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward (2)(2)(1), Rajkot

ITA 951/RJT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 May 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rahil Dohi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-DR

Section 250

ITA NO. 950&951/RJT/2025 HEMENDRABHAI KAMTILAL PARMAR,, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, राजकोट न्यायपीठ, राजकोट । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC

Hemendrabhai Kantilal Parmar, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2)(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 950/RJT/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.950 & 951/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rahil Dohi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-DR

Section 144Section 250

note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, I restore the matter ... assessing officer at the time of assessment proceedings in consequence to this order and the Assessing Officer shall, allow the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and to make relevant submissions, and then pass a speaking order which is fair and judicious. I do not wish to make any comments

Prafulbhai Jagubhai Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-1, Bardoli

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

ITA 1294/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1294/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Prafulbhai Jagubhai Patel, Vs. Ito, 2/7, Dastan, Palsana, Surat – Ward - 1, 394 310 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bvopp8701K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Shrijignesh Parikh, Ar With Shri Marufkhan Pathan, Ar Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/05/2025

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in law and in facts by passing the impugned order ex parte without giving adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 2. The National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in law and in facts in confirming the assessment order under section ... therefore, set aside the order of CIT(A) and remit the issue to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee subject to payment of the cost of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) by the assessee to the credit