“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

Aditya Gupta HUF, Delhi vs. Assessment Unit, Itd, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 481/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON'BLE (Vice President)

For Appellant: Ms. Vidhushi Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

assessee in preceding para of this order, and then decide the issues in dispute, afresh, in accordance with law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, for which Ld. DR has no objection. 4. In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes Order

Sushila Tyagi, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Civic Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 472/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2012-13 Sushila Tyagi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 87, Ground Floor, Ward B1-29(1), East Side, Safdarjung Enclave, Civic Centre, New Delhi New Delhi (Pan: Aiwpt8238P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15.04.2025 Order This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.11.2024 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee, Despite Issue Of Notice For Hearing, Hence, I Am Proceeding Exparte Qua The Assessee, After Hearing The Ld. Dr & Perusing The Records. 3. I Have Heard The Ld. Dr & Perused The Records. Upon Careful Consideration, It Is Noted That In This Case Assessing Officer Has Passed An Exparte Order U/S. 144 Of The Act & In Appeal Ld. Cit(A) Has Also Passed The Exparte Order, Even Without Deciding The Same On Merits. In View Of The Aforesaid Factual Matrix & In The Interest Of Justice, I Remit Back The Issues In Dispute 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 Also Directed To Fully Cooperate With The Ao During The Proceedings. 4. In The Result, The Assessee’S Appeal Is Allowed For Statistical Purposes Order Pronounced In The Open Court On 15.04.2025. (Mahavir Singh)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 144

back the issues in dispute 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 also directed to fully cooperate with the AO during the proceedings

Preeti Gupta, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Faridabad

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

ITA 458/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2017-18 Preeti Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Officer, H.No. 468, Sector-17, Nh-4, Nit Faridabad Faridabad-121002, Haryana-121001 Haryana (Pan: Bdcpg6426Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15.04.2025 Order This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 11.12.2024 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee, Despite Issue Of Notice For Hearing, Hence, I Am Proceeding Exparte Qua The Assessee, After Hearing The Ld. Dr & Perusing The Records. 3. I Have Heard The Ld. Dr & Perused The Records. Upon Careful Consideration, It Is Noted That In This Case Assessing Officer Has Passed An Exparte Order U/S. 144 Of The Act & In Appeal Ld. Cit(A) Has Also Passed The Exparte Order, Even Without Deciding The Same On Merits. In View Of The Aforesaid Factual Matrix & In The Interest Of Justice, I Remit Back The Issues In Dispute 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 Also Directed To Fully Cooperate With The Ao During The Proceedings. 4. In The Result, The Assessee’S Appeal Is Allowed For Statistical Purposes Order Pronounced In The Open Court On 15.04.2025. (Mahavir Singh)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 144

Rajeev Kumar Gupta, Mohalla Kheru, Naya Bazarganjdundwara vs. Income Tax Officer -3 (4), Hathras

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

ITA 6132/DEL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2010-11 Rajeev Kumar Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 3(4), Hathras Mohalla Kheru, Naya Uttar Pradesh Bazarganjdundwara, Etah, Uttar Pradesh (Pan: Aaopg6112D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15.04.2025 Order This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.2.2024 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee, Despite Issue Of Notice For Hearing, Hence, I Am Proceeding Exparte Qua The Assessee, After Hearing The Ld. Dr & Perusing The Records. 3. I Have Heard The Ld. Dr & Perused The Records. Upon Careful Consideration, It Is Noted That In This Case Assessing Officer Has Passed An Exparte Order U/S. 144/147 Of The Act & In Appeal Ld. Cit(A) Has Also Passed The Exparte Order, Even Without Deciding The Same On Merits. In View Of The Aforesaid Factual Matrix & In The Interest Of Justice, I Remit Back The Issues In Dispute To The File Of The Ld. Cit(A) With The Directions To Decide The Same Afresh, After Giving Adequate Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee & Pass A Speaking Order On The Merits Of The Case, For Which Ld. Dr Has No Objection. Assessee Is Also Directed To Fully Cooperate With The Ld. Cit(A) During The Proceedings. 4. In The Result, The Assessee’S Appeal Is Allowed For Statistical Purposes Order Pronounced In The Open Court On 15.04.2025. (Mahavir Singh)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 144

issues in dispute to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with the directions to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass a speaking order on the merits of the case, for which Ld. DR has no objection. Assessee is also

Surinder Garg, Panipat vs. ITO Ward - 1, Panipat

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

ITA 6085/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2012-13 Surinder Garg, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Panipat C/O J.B. Sharma, Adv. 72, Bmk Market, Nr Hotel Hive, Gt Road, Panipat Haryana (Pan: Agbpg4166C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri J.B. Sharma, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15.04.2025 Order This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.7.2024 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. At The Outset, Ld. Ar For The Assessee Submitted That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred Both On Facts & In Law In Passing The Order Exparte Without Providing The Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee In Clear Violation Of Principle Of Natural Justice. He Further Submitted That Ld. Cit(A) Has Not Given Adequate Findings On The Issue Of Jurisdiction As Well As On Merits Of The Case. 3. I Have Heard The Rival Contentions & Perused The Records. Upon Careful Consideration, I Find That Ld. Cit(A) Has Not Discussed The Issues On Merits As Well On Jurisdiction Issue, Rather He Dismissed The Appeal On Account Of Non-Prosecution, Which Is Not Permissible. Hence, In The Interest Of Justice, I Remit Back The Issues In Dispute To The File Of The Ld. Cit(A) With The Directions To Pass A Reasonable & Speaking Order On The Jurisdictional Ground As Well As On Merits Of The Case, After Giving Adequate Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee, For Which Ld. Dr Has No Objection. Assessee Is Also Directed To Fully Cooperate With The Ld. Cit(A) During The Proceedings. 4. In The Result, The Assessee’S Appeal Is Allowed For Statistical Purposes Order Pronounced In The Open Court On 15.04.2025. (Mahavir Singh)

For Appellant: Shri J.B. Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in passing the order exparte without providing the reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in clear violation of principle of natural justice. He further submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has not given adequate findings ... directions to pass a reasonable and speaking order on the jurisdictional ground as well as on merits of the case, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, for which ld. DR has no objection. Assessee is also directed to fully cooperate with the Ld. CIT(A) during

Income Tax Officer Ward -2(1), Moradabad vs. Zakira Khan, Moradabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4851/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganeshincome Tax Officer, Vs. Zakira Khan, Ward-2(1), Civil Linies, Moradabad Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aitpk1754A

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

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 151(1)

Section 151 and new Section 148A of the Act were introduced vide Finance Act, 2021 which provides for making enquiry and to provide opportunity of being heard to the Page 3 of 8 Zakira Khan assessee before issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. The assessee placed reliance

M/S. G K Solutions Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 5(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 557/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) G K Solutions Private Limited Nfac/Ito-5(1)(1) B-710, 711, Crystal Plaza New Link Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai- Vs. Road, Andheri West, Mumbai City, 400020. Mumbai -400053. Pan: Aaccg2734Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Lodhe AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pradnya Gholap, Sr. DR

Section 24Section 250Section 254(1)

quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned NFAC passed the order without providing the adequate opportunity of being heard thereby violating principle of natural justice before passing the order. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Owens-Corning (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-15(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the appellant is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4415/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

For Appellant: Shri M.P. LohiaFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 37

Violation of Principles of Natural Justice 5.1 The CIT(Appeals) erred in not granting opportunity of being heard by virtual conference in respect of above grounds of appeal despite the specific request made by the Appellant in its submission.” 3. From these above grounds of appeal ... directed to delete the disallowance so made by him and to re-compute its total income accordingly. 3.0 Re: Non grant of opportunity of being heard 3.1 The CIT (A) erred in not granting opportunity of being heard despite the specific request made by the Appellant

Surinder Kumar, Jalalabad (W) vs. ITO Ward 2(4), Abohar

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

ITA 92/ASR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Manpreet Singh Duggal, Sr. D. R

Section 115BSection 69A

wrongly and Illegally upheld the additions made by the Ld. AO by passing an ex-parte order appellant an opportunity of being heard and confirmed addition amounting to Rs 21,16,031/- by invoking the provisions of section 69A and taxing the same u/s 115BBE of the Income

Mr.Suresh Kumar Kakkar, Nawanshahr vs. Income Tax Officer, Nawanshahr

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

ITA 576/ASR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Das Gupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No.576/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 250

matter back to the Ld. first appeal authority, to adjudicate the issue on merits of the case after affording proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee is also directed to file all necessary evidences before the appellate authority, in support of his case

Wani Iron Steel, Srinagar vs. Ward 1 Srinagar, Srinagar

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

ITA 462/ASR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No.462/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

fresh adjudication relating to the alleged bogus purchase and to pass appropriate orders. 8. The assessee shall be allowed reasonable opportunity of being heard. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Departmental Appeal: ITA – 442/ ASR / 2024: 9. In this appeal the revenue

Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Srinagar, Srinagar vs. Wani Iron Steel, Nowgam by Pass

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

ITA 442/ASR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No.462/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

Dhwani Finserve Pvt Ltd, Rajkot vs. Principal Commissoner of Income Tax-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 389/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Naimish Vayawala &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 263

findings on the documents submitted by the assessee during the course of proceedings u/s.263 of the Act and also grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Dhwani Finserve Pvt.Ltd. vs. Pr.CIT-1 We also direct the assessee to submit the relevant documents and evidences, if any, which

Kishan Beej, Jamnagar vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Jamnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 384/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.384/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kishan Beej Ito, Wared-2(1) बनाम Kashivishvanath Road Jamnagar – 361 001 Nr. P & T Office Vs. Jamnagar – 361 001 Pan : Aacfk 2114 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271ASection 69Section 69A

grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: 1.That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly passed the order without providing proper opportunity of being heard. 2.That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the l.T. Act, 1961. 3.That ... approval of specified authority, with respect to the information which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; (ii) provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, with the prior approval of specified authority; (iii) consider the reply of the assessee furnished, if any, in response

Retired Bank Employees Charitable and Educational Trust, Bhuj vs. CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 308/RJT/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Apr 2025

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.308/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : -Na-) Retired Bank Employees बनाम/ The Cit (Exemptions) Charitable & Educational Ahmedabad – 380 015 Vs. Trust 2, Sharda Society Bhuj-Kachchh, Bhuj Bhuj – 370 001 (Gujarat) "ायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabar 5167 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Assessee By : Ms. Chaunauti H. Dholakia, Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 03 /04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 11 /04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(E)”], Dated 30/03/2024, Rejecting The Application For Registration Under Section 12Ab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

For Appellant: Ms. Chaunauti H. Dholakia, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)

Section 10Section 11Section 115TSection 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 2(15)

claim. At the same time, the Ld. CIT(E) shall decide the matter on merits and in accordance with law, after granting due opportunity of being heard. The assessee may also be permitted to make necessary correction in the application in Form No.10AB under sub-clause (iii) of clause

The One World Enterprise, Rajkot vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 211/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.211/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) The One World Enterprise Vs. The Ito, Ward – 1(1)(1), The One World Site Office R. S. No. 516, Rajkot 150Ft Ring Road, Ayodhya Circle, New Aayakar Bhavan, Race Rajkot - 360005 Course Ring Road, Rajkot – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Aanft0251F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav. Ld. Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party should be granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to 3 The One World Enterprise v. ITO contest his case. Keeping in view, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order

Mukesh Kumar Saini, Dausa Rajasthan vs. ITO WD, Dausa

In the result, the appeal is Dismissed

ITA 169/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Mrs. Suhani Meharwal, CA (Thru:VC)For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT -DR a

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

making addition u/s 68 and simultaneously ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the same, without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard which is in violation of the principles of natural justice and without acquiring valid jurisdiction which is liable to be deleted. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances ... penalty u/s 271(1) (c ) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and simultaneously ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the penalty, without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard which is in violation of the principles of natural justice and without acquiring valid jurisdiction which is liable to be deleted

Mukesh Kumar Saini, Dausa vs. ITO WD, Dausa

In the result, the appeal is Dismissed

ITA 168/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Mrs. Suhani Meharwal, CA (Thru:VC)For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT -DR a

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Ajay Bakliwal, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1278/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 269SSection 271DSection 274Section 275(1)(c)

that no order imposing penalty under this chapter shall be made, unless the assessee has been heard or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no merits in the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that ... that no order imposing penalty under this chapter shall be made, unless the assessee has been heard or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The date of proposal sent by the AO to the Joint/Addl. CIT for initiation of penalty proceedings is not relevant, because, the satisfaction

Diamond Hosiery Mills Private Limited, Ludhiana vs. ITO, Ward -7(1), Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 363/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपीलसं . / ITA No.363 /Chd/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Diamond Hosiery Mills Private बनाम The ITO Limited Ward-7(1), 620/8, Kundan Puri, Civil Lines, Ludhiana Ludhiana स्थायीलेखासं./PAN NO: AABCD7485Q अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A राजस्वकी ओर से / Revenue by : Shri Chandrajit Singh, CIT, DR सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date of Hearing : 20/01/202

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

show cause notice nor was any opportunity given to the assessee to respond on this point. Thus, the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of being heard on this newly introduced issue and the introduction of new issue directly in the order u/s 263 without its mention