← 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

Shri Ganesh Serva Seva Sangha Shripur, Solapur vs. CIT(E), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1230/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1230/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhorFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify

Shivaji Laxman Sahane, Nashik vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1078/PUN/2024[A.Y. 2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1078/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S.ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

should not be made under section 271 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 will be considered before ... this case vide order No. Nsk/ CIT(A)-2/51/13-14 dated 05.02.2015. 5 Shavaji Laxman Sahane 02 Hence, a final opportunity of being heard is given to you. You are hereby requested to appear before me on or before 11.00 Α.Μ. 16.03.2016 and show cause

Meenamani Ganga Builder LLP, Pune vs. PCIT (Central), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1027/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1027/Pun/2024

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 263Section 263(1)Section 68

therefore, intend to set aside/ modify the assessment order within the meaning of section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961. An opportunity of being heard is therefore, given to you. You are requested to attend in person or through your authorized representative ... erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify

Rajarshi Shahu Shikshan Sanstha Inam Dhamani, Sangli vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 1024/PUN/2023[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 10Section 115BSection 119Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(2)

satisfied, pass an order in writing rejecting such application and also cancelling its registration after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard, 14 Rajarshi Shahu Shikshan Sanstha Inam Dhamani (c) where the application is made under sub-clause (vi) of the said clause, pass an order in writing provisionally registering

Ramu Sonkar, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-33(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 164/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.164/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) Ramu Sonkar Vs Ito, Ward-33(2), Kolkata 132, Ajc Bose Road, Sealdah, Kolkata-700014 Pan No. :Akups 5278 E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri B.Satyanarayan Raju, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 09.09.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Appeal Is Barred By 52 Days For Which The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Application Along With Affidavit Of The Assessee Affirming Therein That The Assessee Is Not In Habit Of Accessing Emails On Regular Basis & He Depends On The Accountant For The Same Including The Coordination With The Tax Consultant. The Assessee Affirmed In The Affidavit That The Assessee Could Not Comply With The Notice As Accountant Was On Leave & It Was Only In The First Week Of January When The Notice Regarding Recovery Of Outstanding Demand Was Received In Email, The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.Satyanarayan Raju, CIT-DR

Accordingly, 3 we restore the issue to the file of ld. CIT(A) for readjudication after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 21/04/2025. (RAJESH KUMAR) (PRADIP KUMAR

Multicoat Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-4(2), Kolkata.

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

ITA 593/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, DR
Section 271(1)(c)

objection if the issues of the appeals are restored to the file of AO for re-adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. It was the submission that before the ld. CIT (A), the assessee had provided all the details but the ld. CIT (A) had dismissed ... interest of justice, the issues of appeal are restored to the file of the ld. AO for re-adjudication, after granting assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. 08. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 592/KOL/2024 stands partly allowed for statistical purpose. 09. In respect

Multicoat Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward- 4(2), Kolkata.

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

ITA 592/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, DR
Section 271(1)(c)

objection if the issues of the appeals are restored to the file of AO for re-adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. It was the submission that before the ld. CIT (A), the assessee had provided all the details but the ld. CIT (A) had dismissed ... interest of justice, the issues of appeal are restored to the file of the ld. AO for re-adjudication, after granting assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. 08. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 592/KOL/2024 stands partly allowed for statistical purpose. 09. In respect

Anirban Dutta, Palashan, P.O. Palashan vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3), Burdwan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1527/KOL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1527/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011) Anirban Dutta, Vs Ito, Court Compound, Burdwan Palashan, Dist : Purba Bardhaman Pan No. :Akvpd 6128 R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhary, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashutosh Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.05.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A). National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. At The Outset, On Perusal Of The Appeal Record, It Is Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Filed Belatedly By Only 1 Day. Looking To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Delay Of One Day In Filing The Present Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 3. The Assessee In Its Appeal Has Raised Following Grounds :- 1. For That In View Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Others Weight Of Evidence On Record, The Order Passed By Cit(A), Npac, Delhi In Appeal Case No Citia)/Bwn/10087/2015-16 On Dismissing Appeal Alleging Non-Compliance Of Notices Of Hearing Sent By E-Mail Instead Of Sent By Regd Speed Post When Notices Of Hearing Of Appeal

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhary, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashutosh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 2(47)

post and as such notices of bearing ought to have sent to Appellant by speed post so as to allow the appellant an opportunity of being heard. 2. For that CIT(Appeals), NPAC, Delhi has sent notices of hearing of aforesaid appeal case No CITIAI/Bwn/10087/2015- 16 to Appellant

Neelam Gupta, New Delhi vs. Addl/JCIT (A)-2, Visakhapatnam

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 81/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Ms. Neelam Gupta (Assessee)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(1)

there was enhancement in the income amounting 4 by Rs.397100.00 and assessing total income at Rs 1188620.00 This was made without providing any opportunity of being heard as it appears that this addition was made by treating the employee as non-government employee although no specific reasons has been informed ... correct proposition as per principal of natural justice it becomes mandatory on the part of assessing officer to provide the opportunity of being heard however factually employer of the appellant is govt therefore he is entitle for deduction of Rs 697000.00. 4. Kindly stay the demand. As disallowance has been

Rajesh Kumar, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Faridabad

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

ITA 317/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Ld. First Appellate Authority Instituted On 27.06.2024 Against

Section 144Section 147

filing appeal before the CIT(A) and remit the matter to the file of Ld. AO for assessment afresh, upon providing adequate 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 at the time

Mandir Shri Sita Ram Ji Maharaj Sewa Samiti, Palwal vs. Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 297/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Us That Before The Ld. First Appellate Authority Certain

Section 12ASection 144B

Memorandum of Association of the Society, the Byelaws of the Society, this Bench finds it fit and proper to grant a further opportunity of being heard to the assessee by the Ld. CIT(A). In that view of the matter the additional evidences so placed by the Ld. Counsel ... remitting the issue to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same on merits in accordance with law, 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 at the time

Shyam Sunder Sahni, New Delhi vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC Bengaluru, Bengaluru

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 129/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(1)

that there was enhancement in the income amounting by Rs.397100.00 and assessing total income at Rs 1188620.00 This was made without providing any opportunity of being heard as it appears that this addition 4 was made by treating the employee as non-government employee although no specific reasons has been ... correct proposition as per principal of natural justice it becomes mandatory on the part of assessing officer to provide the opportunity of being heard however factually employer of the appellant is govt therefore he is entitle for deduction of Rs 697000.00. 4. Kindly stay the demand. As disallowance has been

Mohhammad Khalid, Hapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Gautam Budh Nagar

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

ITA 4971/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmamohd. Khalid, Vs. Ito, Ward 5(2)(2), 1273, Bhanda Patti, Gautam Budh Nagar (Up) Hapur – 245 101 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Gvhpk0458L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anil Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.04.2025 Date Of Order : 21.04.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. 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 28.08.2024 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. At The Outset, It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar For The Assessee That Assessing Officer Has Passed The Assessment Order Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) Without

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 147

remit back the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer with the directions to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, for which Ld. DR has no objection. Assessee is directed through his counsel to fully cooperate with the AO during

Nimish Malhotra, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

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

ITA 4775/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmanimish Malhotra, Vs. Acit, 13-B, Second Floor, New Delhi. Netaji Subhash Marg, Daryaganj, Delhi – 110 002. (Pan : Ajxpm5531E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sharad Agarwal, Advocate Ms. Monika Ghai, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.04.2025 Date Of Order : 21.04.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. 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 22.11.2023 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. At The Outset, It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar For The Assessee That Assessing Officer Has Passed The Assessment Order Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144/143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’)

For Appellant: Shri Sharad Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 147

remit back the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer with the directions to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, for which Ld. DR has no objection. Assessee is directed through his counsel to fully cooperate with the AO during

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax vs. Mahesh Purohit, Mumbai

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

ITA 2175/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaacit, Vs. Mahesh Purohit, 901, 9Th Floor, Delhi. Kohinoor Apartment, Yari Road, Versoa, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400 061 (Maharashtra). (Pan : Aifpp1998R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.04.2025 Date Of Order : 21.04.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Revenue Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi – 43 [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 29.02.2024 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. At The Outset, It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar For The Assessee That Assessing Officer Has Passed The Assessment Order Under Section 144 R.W.S.144C (3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) Without

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 144

remit back the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer with the directions to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, for which Ld. DR has no objection. Assessee is directed through his counsel to fully cooperate with the AO during

Micro Land Develpers Private Limited, Haryana vs. ITO, Ward-16(4), New Delhi

ITA 9510/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2011-12 Micro Land Developers Pvt Ltd., Vs Ito, Office No.322, 3Rd Floor, Ward-16(4), Ss Plaza, Commercial Complex, New Delhi. Mayfield Garden, Sector-47, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. Pan: Aafcm0432L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Amol Sinha, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.04.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 04.11.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi-6 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’, For Short) In Appeal No.Cit(A), Delhi-6/10443/2018-19 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 30.12.2018 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Ito, Ward-16(4), New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: Shri Amol Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR
Section 147

restore issues on merits as well as law, to the files of the CIT(A) for a fresh determination, after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Order pronounced in the open court on 21.04.2025. (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 21st April, 2025. dk ITA No.9510/Del/2019

Usha Ramaswamy, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Cirlce-4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 30/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Years: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Anand R Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)
Section 115BSection 139Section 249(2)Section 270A

consideration to the detailed submissions and application filed by the appellant for such condonation. Moreover, the dismissal of the appeal without granting an opportunity of being heard violates the principle of audi alteram partem and natural justice. The appellate order has been passed without addressing the substantive issues raised ... condonation of delay in accordance with law, and, upon condoning the delay, proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, the appeal

Chandrakala Narala, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 2575/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri. Pranit Tanna, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 282ASection 69A

remitting this issue back to the file of the AO for denovo consideration and AO is directed to give three reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and assessee is directed to comply with all notices. In case of failure, no second leniency shall be granted to the assessee

Louella Maria Albuquerque, Mangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Mangalore

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

ITA 2487/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2014-15

For Appellant: Sri Srinivas Kamath, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 250Section 253(5)

remitted back to the file of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh consideration in accordance with the law. Needless to say, a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to update her e-mail ID/Contact number and address on the income

Bangalore Stock Exchange Customer Protection Fund, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, (E), Ward-1, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2246/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Manasa Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 250Section 253(5)Section 5

assessee submitted that order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was not a speaking order and is passed without an effective opportunity of being heard. Further, the ld. A.R. submitted that the 1d. CIT(A)/NFAC erred in not considering the Form 10 filed by the assessee during the course ... file of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh consideration and to decide the same in accordance with law. Needless to say, a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to produce/submit all the requisite documents/ evidence/information in support of their claim