“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

Riyaz Qureshi, Jhabua vs. Income Tax Officer, Jhabua

Appeals are allowed

ITA 665/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 142(1)Section 22(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

made under section 271(i)(c) of the Inceme Tax Act 1961 if you do not wish to avail yourself. of this opportunity of being heard in person of through authorized representative you may show cause in writing on or before the side date which will be cansidered before

Riyaz Qureshi, Jhabua vs. Income Tax Officer, Jhabua

Appeals are allowed

ITA 664/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 142(1)Section 22(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Riyaz Qureshi, Jhabua vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax

Appeals are allowed

ITA 663/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 142(1)Section 22(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Subhash Pareta, Kota Rajasthan vs. Addl. CIT, Range-1, Kota, Kota Rajasthan

19. As a result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A), upholding the penalty order is hereby set aside

ITA 91/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 269SSection 271D

affidavits, it can safely be said to be gross violation of one of the principles of natural justice i.e. non providing of opportunity of being heard. 13 Subhash Pareta, Kota. Conclusion 18. In view of the above discussion and the well settled law on the point of providing of reasonable ... opportunity of being heard, when neither the Assessing Officer, conducting the remand proceedings nor Learned CIT(A), while seized of the appeal, provided opportunity of being heard to the assessee as regards the additional evidence/defects pointed out for rejecting the same, we are of the considered view that the impugned

Subhash Pareta, Kota Rajasthan vs. JCIT, Range-1, Kota, Kota Rajasthan

19. As a result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A), upholding the penalty order is hereby set aside

ITA 90/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 269SSection 271D

affidavits, it can safely be said to be gross violation of one of the principles of natural justice i.e. non providing of opportunity of being heard. Conclusion 18. In view of the above discussion and the well settled law on the point of providing of reasonable opportunity of being heard ... when neither the Assessing Officer, conducting the remand proceedings nor Learned CIT(A), while seized of the appeal, provided opportunity of being heard to the assessee as regards the additional evidence/defects pointed out for rejecting the same, we are of the considered view that the impugned order passed by Learned

Subhash Pareta, Kota Rajasthan vs. JCIT, Range-1, Kota, Kota Rajasthan

19. As a result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A), upholding the penalty order is hereby set aside

ITA 89/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271E

Subhash Pareta, Kota Rajasthan vs. Addl. CIT, Range-1, Kota, Kota Rajasthan

19. As a result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A), upholding the penalty order is hereby set aside

ITA 105/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271E

Pandurang Maruti Abhang, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 5(4), Pune

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

ITA 844/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.844/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Pandurang Maruti Abhang, V The Income Tax Officer, Flat No.203, Narayan Bag S Ward-5(4), Pune. Society, Lane No.8, Shiv Nagar, Kirkatwadi, Sinhagad Road, Pune – 411024. Maharashtra. Pan: Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Himanshu Choudhary – Ar Revenue By Shri Madhan Thirmanpallil – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 29.01.2025 For Assessment Year2019-20. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 250oSection 251Section 251(1)(a)

without discussing each and every ground and merits of the case and merely dismissed for non-compliance. Hence, ld.AR requested for one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 2.1 ld.AR for the Assessee filed a written submission which is reproduced as under : “1. We are in receipt

Payal Sanjay Soni, Pune vs. ITO Ward 6(3), Pune

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

ITA 799/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.799/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Payal Sanjay Soni, V The Income Tax Officer, Flat No.B12, Satyam Co-Op S Ward-6(3), Pune. Hsg Soc, Opp Gavkosh Maruti Mandir, 1452 Kasba Peth, Pune – 411002. Maharashtra. Pan: Bncps5773C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pratik Sandbhor – Ar (Virtual Hearing) Revenue By Shri Madhan Thirmanpalli – Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 14/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 13.01.2025 For Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 250Section 694Section 69A

without discussing each and every ground and merits of the case and merely dismissed for non-compliance. Hence, ld.AR requested for one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Submission of ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) : 3. The ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer

Dnyankala Sanvardhini Sanstha, Pune vs. ITO Exemption Ward 1(2), Pune

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

ITA 794/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: FixedITAT Pune15 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.791/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Manju Rameshchandra Mutha, V The Income Tax Office, Om Shanti Complex, Nehru S Ward-1, Jalna. Road, Dist-Jalna – 431203. Maharashtra. Pan: Aztpm9323L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Prateek Jha – Ar Revenue By Shri Madhan Thirmanpalli – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 14/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 10.02.2025 For Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Prevaling In The Case, The Hon'Ble Commissioner Of Appeal (Nfac) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition

Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 44Section 44ASection 69A

without discussing each and every ground and merits of the case and merely dismissed for non-compliance. Hence, ld.AR requested for one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Submission of ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) : 3. The ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer

Yogesh Durgadas Phal, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 3(2), Pune

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

ITA 436/PUN/2025[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 May 2025

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.436/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr.Yogesh Durgadas Phal, V The Income Tax Officer, 309/33 Gokhale Nagar, Shivaji S Ward-3(2), Pune. Nagar, Opp.Patrakar Nagar, Haweli, Pune – 411016. Maharashtra. Pan: Abjpp1640F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sailee Gujarathi – Ca Revenue By Shri Madhan Thirmanpalli – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 14/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 29.11.2023 For Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 234ASection 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 69A

without discussing each and every ground and merits of the case and merely dismissed for non-compliance. Hence, ld.AR requested for one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Submission of ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) : 3. The ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer

Komal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 26(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 62/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 143(3)Section 144

without considering the papers submitted by the assessee and also 2 KOMAL, AY 2014-15 without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, the ld. AR prayed before the Bench to set aside the order of the authorities below and restore the issue to the file ... being so, the issue in this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer for adjudicating afresh after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to appear before the Ld. Assessing Officer on the date of hearing diligently and without

Pawan Kumar Choudhary, Bankura vs. ITO, Ward 3(3), Bankura

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

ITA 418/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 143(3)

that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is an ex parte order and is a non-speaking order without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, the ld. AR prayed before the Bench to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore ... being so, the issue in this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating afresh after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) on the date of hearing diligently and without

Paschim Nawpara Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited, Nadia vs. ITO, Ward - 41(3), Nadia

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 39/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.39/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Paschim Nawpara Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited...….……….Appellant Nawpara, Noapara B.O. Paschim Noapara, Nadia, 741255, W.B. [Pan: Aadap3765F] Vs. Ito, Ward-41(3), Nadia…………….....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri P. K. Ray, R.C. Halder & Trideep Nayak, Advocates, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Archana Gupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 24.01.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 282 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 Are 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 Assessing Officer Received Information Regarding Cash Deposits Made By The Assessee During The Period Of Demonetization I.E. From 09.11.2016 To 31.12.2016 Amounting To Rs.2,46,000/- & Rs.8,48,500/- Maintained With Nadia District Central Co-Op Bank Ltd., Ranaghat Branch, Nadia & Rs.2,19,500/-

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271ASection 69A

that the matter may be remanded back the issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee to present its case. 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR strongly opposed to such prayer made ... justice and fair play, remand back the issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee to present its case and to pass a speaking order. We also direct the assessee to strictly comply with the notices

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Ltu-1, Chennai, Nungambakkam vs. Orient Green Power Company Limited, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 230/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CITFor Respondent: Mr. Raghav Rajeev Menon

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C

virtue of the aforesaid amendments, the AO is required to adjudicate the issue of claim of expenditures in accordance with law after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We therefore set aside the orders of the AO and the DRP and restore the matter to the AO with ... virtue of the aforesaid amendments, the AO is required to adjudicate the issue of claim of expenditures in accordance with law after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We therefore set aside the orders of the AO and the DRP and restore the matter back

Workers Education Society, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 2051/MUM/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kati Datta, CIT, D/R

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

wrong section code inadvertently while filing the application for final registration in Form 10AB. Further, we notice that assessee did not have the opportunity of being heard before I.T.A. No. 2051/Mum/2025 4 Id. CITE) due to incorrect course of action advised, which otherwise assessee might have explained the facts ... filed with proper Section of the Act and decide the same, as per facts and law after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 15th

Om Siddhi Vijay Mandal, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 1798/MUM/2025[N.A ]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2025

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1798/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :N.A.) Om Siddhi Vijay Mandal 9/162, Khimji Nagji Building, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (W.), Mumbai-400013 V/S. Cit(Exemption), Mumbai बनाम Room No. 601, 6Th Floor, Cumballa Hill, Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-400026 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaato5189J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By: Ms. Neha Paranjpe राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Mr. R. A. Dhyani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 30.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 15.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Renu Jauhri [Α.Μ.] :- This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai-/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)"] Dated 29.12.2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”]. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Ms. Neha ParanjpeFor Respondent: Mr. R. A. Dhyani

Section 12ASection 250

fresh adjudication after examining the details of the expenditure submitted by it. Needless to add, the assessee should be given due opportunity of being heard before deciding the application for registration. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open

M/S. Edelweiss Rural & Corporate Services Limited (As Sucessor of Edelweiss Capital Markets Limited ), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -3(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1752/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shir Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanm/S. Edelweiss Rural & Dcit Circle-3(1)(2), Corporate Services Limited R. No. 607, 6Th Floor, Aayakar (As A Success Of Edelweiss Capital Vs. Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Markets Limited), Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 14Th Floor, Edelweiss House, Off Cst Road, Kalina, Santacruz East, Mumbai – 400 098 Pan: Aacce5207G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14ASection 250

erred in law in passing order u/s 250 of the Act and upholding additions made by assessing officer without giving adequate opportunity of being heard and violating the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the Appellant prays that the order passed by the CIT(A) under section ... against Rs. 55,591/- disallowed by the Appellant. (b) The CIT(A) has erred in passing ex-parte order without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard. The Appellant submits that it has not incurred any expenditure in excess of Rs. 55,591/- towards earning of an exempt income; hence

Tarapur Education Society, Tarapur, Boisar vs. Exemption Ward, Thane

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

ITA 1746/MUM/2025[Not applicable]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2025

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 10Section 11Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

Income Tax Act, 1961 should not be cancelled. The assessee was requested to submit compliance by 30/12/2024. 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 ... show cause notice nor availed the opportunity of being heard. 5. The information / details were were called for under the provisions of section 12AB(1)(b)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. These are the basic details required to ascertain the overall nature of the activities of the assessee

Tarapur Education Society, Tarapur, Boisar vs. Exemption Ward, Thane

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

ITA 1745/MUM/2025[Not applicable]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2025

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 10Section 11Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

Income Tax Act, 1961 should not be cancelled. The assessee was requested to submit compliance by 30/12/2024. 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 compliance ... show cause notice nor availed the opportunity of being heard. 5. The information / details were called for under the provisions of section 12AB(1)(b)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. These are the basic details required to ascertain the overall nature of the activities of the assessee