← 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

Shyam Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 35(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2010-11 stand allowed for statistical purposes in the aforesaid manner

ITA 2997/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. R.K. Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. DR
Section 13(1)(b)Section 143(3)Section 147

remitted back to the file of the AO with the directions to decide the issues afresh, in accordance with law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Ld. DR did not object the aforesaid proposition. 5 | P a g e 5. After hearing both the sides ... file of the Assessing Officer with the directions to decide the issues in dispute afresh, in accordance with law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee is also directed through his Ld. A.R. to properly canvass its case before the AO on all the issues

Pravinbhai Bhimjibhai Boda, Rajkot vs. Addl/JCIT (Appeals), Udaipur, Rajkot

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

ITA 76/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.76/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Pravinbhai Bhimjibhai Boda, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Block No. 286, St. No. 2, Wd1(1)(5), Karmabhumi, Janak Society, Aaykar Bhawan, Race Course, Sadhuvasvani Road, Rajkot-360005 Ring Road, Rajkot 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Apapb2470G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Parth Dasani Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav , Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250

stated that these notices were not served on the assessee. Therefore, I am of the view that the assessee did not have proper opportunity of being heard before CIT(A) and ex-parte order of CIT(A) dismissing the appeal of the assessee, has to be set aside

Shree Tithva Seva Sahkari Mandli Limited, Tithva, Wankaner vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Morbi

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

ITA 19/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 143(3)Section 250

merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. However, 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 Id. CIT(A). I note that the Id. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee ... 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. However, on account of non-compliance attitude of the assessee, I impose a cost of Rs.5000/- which

Kalpeshbhai Vajubhai Kunpara, Rajkot vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Rajkot

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

ITA 139/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.139/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Kalpeshbhaivajubhaikunpara, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Opp. Ghanshyam Nagar, Nr. Sun The Income Tax Department, Petrol Pump, Vivekanand Nagar, Race Course Road, Kothariya Main Road Rajkot 360001 Rajkot 360002 (Gujarat) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Ayjpk7641J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sunny Mehta, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav , Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 147

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 order

Gojiya Bhikhubhai, Jamnagar vs. Principal Commissionerof Income Tax, Jamnagar

ITA 612/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Paun, Id. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Id.CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 69

direction to the assessing officer to revise the assessment order. 2.Learned PCIT Jamnagar erred in law as well facts by not giving effective opportunity of being heard, and passed order which is against the law and principle of natural justice. Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw

Shree Samarth Electricals Pvt Ltd, Jamnagar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar

ITA 610/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Paun, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 69

direction to the assessing officer to revise the assessment order. 2.Learned PCIT Jamnagar erred in law as well facts by not giving effective opportunity of being heard, and passed order which is against the law and principle of natural justice. Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw

Shree Samarth Switchgear and Transmission Pvt Ltd, Jamnagar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar

ITA 609/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Paun, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 69

direction to the assessing officer to revise the assessment order. 2.Learned PCIT Jamnagar erred in law as well facts by not giving effective opportunity of being heard, and passed order which is against the law and principle of natural justice. Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw

Amratalal Karsandas Samani, Jamkhambhaliya vs. Office of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 463/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am.& & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.463/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Amrutlalkarsandassamani Vs. Principal Commissioner Rest House Road, Of Income Tax, Jodhpur Gate, Jamnagar-361008 Jam Khambhaliya, Dist: Devbhoomi Dwarka-361305. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afhps5447P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Mahesh Paun, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Pungalia, Ld. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 27 /02 /2025 : 25 /04 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Paun, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Pungalia, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 68

assessing officer to not to revise the assessment order. 2. Learned PCIT Jamnagar erred in law as well facts by not giving effective opportunity of being heard 3. Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any ground of appeals. 3.The appeal filedby the assessee, for Assessment Year

Dolly Jindal, Lucknow vs. ITO-3(5), Lucknow

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

ITA 327/LKW/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Dolly Jindal V. The Income Tax Officer 3(5) 107, Beverly Park Apartment Lucknow New Hyderabad Lucknow Tan/Pan:Afmpj5089D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 23 04 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25 04 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 147Section 148

decision thereof is bad in law and liable to set aside. 02. Because the Ld. CIT (A) has erred while not giving adequate opportunity of being heard like thereof is bad in law and against the Principle of Natural Justice "Audi Alteram Partem" of Constitution of India. 03. Because

Bright Land College, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 227/LKW/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2013-14 Bright Land College, Vs. Income Tax Officer 538A / 543/5, Triveni Nagar (Exemption), Lucknow, The Sitapur Road, Lucknow Jurisdictional Assessing Officer Pan:Aaatb4391F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 02.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Passed On 17.10.2022 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing The Order, Which Is Unlawful, Unjustified & Against The Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing The Order Without Giving Adequate Opportunity Of Being Heard. 3. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding Ad Hoc Disallowance Of Expense Of Rs. 1,54,57,795/- Against The Order Passed U/S 143(1) Of Income-Tax Act Without Following The Procedure Laid Down In Sub-Section (1) Of Section 143 Of Income-Tax Act, 1961. 4. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Granting Exemption U/S 11 & 12 Of The I. T. Act, 1961. 1 Bright Land College A.Y. 2013-14

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. CIT
Section 11Section 12(1)(b)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250

justice. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in passing the order without giving adequate opportunity of being heard. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in upholding ad hoc disallowance of expense

Ethos Limited, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee I

ITA 873/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble Vice- & Sh. Krinwant Sahay, Hon’Ble(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No.873/Chandi/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 41

then by Worthy CIT(A) deserves to be quashed since the same have been passed without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 7. That the appellant craves leave for any addition, deletion or amendment in the grounds of appeal on or before the disposal of the same

Shailesh Kumar Ishwarbhai Patel, Anand vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Anand

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

ITA 2015/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2015/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14) बनाम/ Shailesh Kumar The Ito Ishwarbhai Patel Ward 1, Anand Vs. Gandhi Pole, Vaherakhadi, Anand, Gujarat - 388365 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Auhpp1709Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Ms. Arti Shah, Ar. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. Dr 17/04/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 25/04/2025 O R D E R The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) Dated 30.09.2024 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2013- 14. 2. The Grounds Raised In The Appeal By The Assessee Are As Under:

For Appellant: Ms. Arti Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

condoning the bona-fide and genuine delay caused in filling appeal before him. The CIT(A) also erred in not providing sufficient opportunity of being heard during the course of hearing which voids the principles of natural justice and therefore may please be set-aside. 2. The learned CIT(Appeals

Shri Agrasen Bhawan Agrawal Samaj Hiwarkhed, Akola vs. CIT(Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 2492/PUN/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Manish SomaniFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Gadekar
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) to adjudicate the same afresh after on merits after affording one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. The Ld. DR had no objection to the above proposition of the Ld. AR. 7. We have considered the submissions ... registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the Act afresh on merits, in accordance with facts and law, after allowing one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee and present its case. The assessee shall provide the requisite support in terms of submitting the relevant details/documentary evidence

Sanskritik Mandal, Ahmednagar vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 2028/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2028/Pun/2024

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)

direction to grant an opportunity to the appellant to substantiate its case by filing requisite details and decide the issue after giving due opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Appellant is also hereby directed to make its submissions, if any, before the ld. CIT(E) on the 4 Sanskritik

Sweta Agarwal, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolkata

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

ITA 2105/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2105/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Sweta Agarwal,……………..…………...…………Appellant Room No. 8, 7, Raj Mohan Street, Kolkata-700073, West Bengal [Pan:Aiypa9816E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………….…………...Respondent Ward-1(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Tarak Nath Jaiswal, A.R. & Shri Ashay Singiska, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: April 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: April 25, 2025 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271A(1)(d)

principle of natural justice, and remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before

Arun Kumar Gupta, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-44(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 147/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 147/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Arun Kumar Gupta,…………………...…………Appellant 8H, Krittibash Mukherjee Road, Ultadanga, Kolkata-700067 [Pan:Aglpg7580J] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………….…………...Respondent Ward-44(2), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001 Appearances By: Shri Abhisek Bansal, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: April 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: April 25, 2025 O R D E R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

principle of natural justice, and remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At 4 Arun Kumar Gupta the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with

Vijayakumar K Valayathodiyil, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-22(1), Tambaram

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

ITA 405/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.403/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.404/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.405/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2014-15 [ Vijayakumar K Valayathodiyil Assistant Commissioner Of No.A-302, Purva Swan Lake, Income Tax, Renugambal Nagar, Omr, Non-Corporate Circle-22(1),(Tbm), Kelambakkam, Chennai. Chennai-603 103. [Pan: Adkpv1734B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri D.Anand, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri D.Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.Rajan, CIT

405/Chny/2025 matter after considering condonation of the delay in filing the appeal before him. The Ld.First Appellate Authority shall give due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass a speaking order on merits. If required, he may obtain a remand report from the Ld.AO. The assessee shall comply

Vijayakumar K Valayathodiyil, Chennai vs. ACIT, Nc-22(1), Tambaram

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

ITA 404/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.403/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.404/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.405/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2014-15 [ Vijayakumar K Valayathodiyil Assistant Commissioner Of No.A-302, Purva Swan Lake, Income Tax, Renugambal Nagar, Omr, Non-Corporate Circle-22(1),(Tbm), Kelambakkam, Chennai. Chennai-603 103. [Pan: Adkpv1734B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri D.Anand, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri D.Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.Rajan, CIT

405/Chny/2025 matter after considering condonation of the delay in filing the appeal before him. The Ld.First Appellate Authority shall give due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass a speaking order on merits. If required, he may obtain a remand report from the Ld.AO. The assessee shall comply

Vijayakumar K Valayathodiyil, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-22(1), Tambaram

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

ITA 403/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.403/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.404/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.405/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2014-15 [ Vijayakumar K Valayathodiyil Assistant Commissioner Of No.A-302, Purva Swan Lake, Income Tax, Renugambal Nagar, Omr, Non-Corporate Circle-22(1),(Tbm), Kelambakkam, Chennai. Chennai-603 103. [Pan: Adkpv1734B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri D.Anand, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri D.Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.Rajan, CIT

405/Chny/2025 matter after considering condonation of the delay in filing the appeal before him. The Ld.First Appellate Authority shall give due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass a speaking order on merits. If required, he may obtain a remand report from the Ld.AO. The assessee shall comply

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1 1, Chennai vs. Il and Fs Tamilnadu Power Company Limited, Chennai

ITA 1694/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon'Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1332/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2018-19 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1694/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2018-19 Il & Fs Tamil Nadu Power Company Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Old No.21, New No.2, Kpr Tower, 4Th Floor, Greams Road, S.O, Nungambakkam Chennai-600 006. [Pan: Aabcf1176A] Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1694/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai Il & Fs Tamil Nadu Power Company Limited, Old No.21, New No.2, Kpr Tower, 4Th Floor, Greams Road, S.O, Nungambakkam Chennai-600 006. [Pan: Aabcf1176A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri.Ashwin, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : The Below Mentioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Appellant Assessee & Revenue For Ay-2018-19 Contesting The Order Of Ld. First Appellate Authority Indicated In Column-E, Herein Below:- S. No. A Appeal Nos. B Ays C Appellant D Cit(A) Order Details E Respondent F 1

For Appellant: Shri.Ashwin, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, CIT

first issue raised by the assessee through its grounds of appeal is regarding the violation of principles of natural justice stating that proper opportunity of being heard was not given. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that emails were sent on the email address of former employee and hence