← 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

Shree Sarvajanik Muktidham Trust Sundhia, Mehsana vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2185/AHD/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Mar 2025

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.2184/Ahd/2024 & 2185/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : - Shree Sarvajank Muktidham The Cit (Exemption) बनाम/ Trust Sundhia Ahmedabad – 380 015 V/S. At Sundhiya, Vadnagar Mehsana – 384 345 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabts 8092 G अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhrunal Bhatt & Shri Gulab Thakor, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26 /03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27 /03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 13.11.2024 & 15.11.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(Exemption)"], Rejecting The Applications Of The Assessee For Registration Under Section 12Ab & Approval Under Section 80G(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"]. Since The Facts & Issues Arising In Both Appeals Are Common, They Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri Dhrunal Bhatt &For Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 12ASection 80G(5)

issuance of merely two notices—without issuing a final show-cause notice or granting effective opportunity—does not meet the threshold of reasonable opportunity of being heard, especially in the case of a small charitable trust. It is a well-settled principle of natural justice that no adverse order should ... u/s.80G(5)) passed by the CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad and restore the matters to his file for fresh adjudication after affording reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to comply with any notices issued and to file necessary documents or explanations in support

Shree Sarvajank Muktidham Trust Sundhia, Mehsana vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2184/AHD/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Mar 2025

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.2184/Ahd/2024 & 2185/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : - Shree Sarvajank Muktidham The Cit (Exemption) बनाम/ Trust Sundhia Ahmedabad – 380 015 V/S. At Sundhiya, Vadnagar Mehsana – 384 345 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabts 8092 G अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhrunal Bhatt & Shri Gulab Thakor, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26 /03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27 /03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 13.11.2024 & 15.11.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(Exemption)"], Rejecting The Applications Of The Assessee For Registration Under Section 12Ab & Approval Under Section 80G(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"]. Since The Facts & Issues Arising In Both Appeals Are Common, They Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri Dhrunal Bhatt &For Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 12ASection 80G(5)

issuance of merely two notices—without issuing a final show-cause notice or granting effective opportunity—does not meet the threshold of reasonable opportunity of being heard, especially in the case of a small charitable trust. It is a well-settled principle of natural justice that no adverse order should ... u/s.80G(5)) passed by the CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad and restore the matters to his file for fresh adjudication after affording reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to comply with any notices issued and to file necessary documents or explanations in support

Vilayat Gidc Industries Association, Bharuch vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2180/AHD/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2158 & 2180/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : Na) बनाम/ Vilayat Gidc Industries Commissioner Of Income Association Tax (Exemption) Vs. Plot No.1, Vagra, Bharuch, Ahmedabad Gujarat - 392001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aactv3867G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Jigar Shah & Shri Amber Kumrawat, Ars. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit. Dr Date Of Hearing 25/03/2025 27/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad, (In Short ‘The Cit(E)’), Dated 18.10.2024 & 21.10.2024 In Respect Of Rejection Of Registration Under Section 12A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) & Rejection Of Approval U/S.80G(5) Of The Act; Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Jigar Shah & Shri AmberFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT. DR
Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 82G(5)

also rejected. 3. Shri Jigar Shah, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the application of the assessee was rejected without allowing proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He submitted that only effective opportunity was allowed by the Ld. CIT(E) vide show cause notice dated 01.10.2024. Further

Vilayat Gidc Industries Association, Bharuch vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2158/AHD/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2158 & 2180/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : Na) बनाम/ Vilayat Gidc Industries Commissioner Of Income Association Tax (Exemption) Vs. Plot No.1, Vagra, Bharuch, Ahmedabad Gujarat - 392001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aactv3867G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Jigar Shah & Shri Amber Kumrawat, Ars. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit. Dr Date Of Hearing 25/03/2025 27/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad, (In Short ‘The Cit(E)’), Dated 18.10.2024 & 21.10.2024 In Respect Of Rejection Of Registration Under Section 12A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) & Rejection Of Approval U/S.80G(5) Of The Act; Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Jigar Shah & Shri AmberFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT. DR
Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 82G(5)

also rejected. 3. Shri Jigar Shah, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the application of the assessee was rejected without allowing proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He submitted that only effective opportunity was allowed by the Ld. CIT(E) vide show cause notice dated 01.10.2024. Further

Pokharna Educational Trust, Shirur vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 44/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Bora and Ms. Sampada IngaleFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari, CIT
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 2Section 80G

file. Needless to say, the Ld. CIT(E) is directed to adjudicate the issue as per fact and law after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No.43/PUN/2025 are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes

Pokharna Educational Trust, Shirur vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 43/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Bora and Ms. Sampada IngaleFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari, CIT
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 2Section 80G

file. Needless to say, the Ld. CIT(E) is directed to adjudicate the issue as per fact and law after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No.43/PUN/2025 are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes

Sachin Dilip Agrawal, Jalgaon vs. DCIT Cir 1, Jalgaon

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

ITA 2218/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

NFAC with a direction to condone the delay and decide the issue on merit and as per fact and law after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes

Poreddy Sudhakaramma, Kurnool vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kurnool

ITA 1196/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: us : "1) The order of the learned CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making an addition of 69,37,904/- made under Section 69A of the Act on the ground that it represents the unexplained money. 3) The learned CIT(A) failed to see the fact that regular book of account have been maintained; All the transactions are recorded in the said book of account; the cash book is properly maintained and the deposi

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. A.R
Section 147Section 148Section 69A

direction to re-adjudicate the issue. Needless to say, the Assessing Officer shall in the course of set-aside proceedings afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who shall remain at a liberty to substantiate her claim qua the source of the credits in her bank accounts

Hap Garments Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 404/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Us. A Perusal Of The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Shows That Before The Ld. Cit(A). The Assessee Has Submitted That All Relevant Documents Are In The Custody Of The Central Bureau Of Investigation (Cbi) After This Agency Raided Them. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Stated That It Was The Duty Of The Assessee To Obtain The Copies From The Cbi & Provide The Same Before The Ld. Ao. Consequently, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee.

Section 250

assessee adequate opportunity to present its case, the issues are restored back to the Ld. AO for re- adjudication after granting adequate opportunity of being heard. In the event the assessee is unable to produce the relevant documents even after attempts the Ld. AO may also use his office

Dakai Dahala Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited, Bankura vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), Bankura

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

ITA 1787/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Mar 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

For Appellant: None (withdrawal application filed)For Respondent: Shri Anindya Kumar Bandopadhyay, Addl. CIT
Section 250Section 80P

justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee to represent his case. The assessee is at liberty to file all necessary documents in support of its claim before

Kavvery Perumal Satheeswaran, Chennai vs. ITO, Ward 1, Tiruchengode

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

ITA 3102/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.:3102/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Kavvery Perumal Satheeswaran, The Income Tax Officer, 8/66, Thangavel Illam, Cauvery R.S., Vs. Ward 1, Pallipalayam, Erode 638 007. Tiruchengode. [Pan: Asxps2629A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri N.C. Ravi Krishnan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.03.2025 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 23.09.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2012-13. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 4 Days. The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Explaining Reasons For The Said Delay & Prayed For Condonation Of That Delay. On Perusal Of The Condonation Petition & Upon Hearing The Ld. Ar & Ld. Dr, We Find That The Reasons Explained By The Assessee Are Bonafide & Therefore, The Delay Is Condoned & Admitted The Appeal For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri N.C. Ravi Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to furnish proper explanation with documentary evidences to substantiate her claim before

Ashok Kumar Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 932/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 37

carry out necessary verification in the light of the decision of by Hon’ble Bombay High Court. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee and the assessee is at liberty to furnish all the necessary evidence to substantiate its claim which shall

Rajesh Uttamchand Wadhwani, Bengaluru vs. ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 651/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri. Himesh DimbleFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, Ld. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

Revenue Department under “other heads” within 15 days of the receipt of this order. Suffice to say the Ld. Commissioner shall afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 6. We clarify that in case of further default the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. Thus

Rajesh Uttamchand Wadhwani, Bengaluru vs. ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 650/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri. Himesh DimbleFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, Ld. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

Revenue Department under “other heads” within 15 days of the receipt of this order. Suffice to say the Ld. Commissioner shall afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 6. We clarify that in case of further default the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. Thus

Rajesh Uttamchand Wadhwani, Bengaluru vs. ACIT/DCIT Central Circle 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 649/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri. Himesh DimbleFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, Ld. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

Revenue Department under “other heads” within 15 days of the receipt of this order. Suffice to say the Ld. Commissioner shall afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 6. We clarify that in case of further default the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. Thus

Rajesh Uttamchand Wadhwani, Bengaluru vs. ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 648/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri. Himesh DimbleFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, Ld. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

Revenue Department under “other heads” within 15 days of the receipt of this order. Suffice to say the Ld. Commissioner shall afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 6. We clarify that in case of further default the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. Thus

Rajesh Uttamchand Wadhwani, Bengaluru vs. ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 647/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri. Himesh DimbleFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, Ld. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

Revenue Department under “other heads” within 15 days of the receipt of this order. Suffice to say the Ld. Commissioner shall afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 6. We clarify that in case of further default the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. Thus

Rajesh Uttamchand Wadhwani, Bengaluru vs. Acti/DCIT, Central Circle 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 646/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri. Himesh DimbleFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, Ld. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

Revenue Department under “other heads” within 15 days of the receipt of this order. Suffice to say the Ld. Commissioner shall afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 6. We clarify that in case of further default the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. Thus

Madhur Textile Industries LLP, Thane vs. ITO Ward 2 Palghar, Palghar

ITA 384/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gaurang KhakhkharFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 68

forthwith file details/documents/submission in support of its claims/contentions before the Assessing Officer. It is clarified that the Assessing Officer shall grant reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. However, in case the Assessee fails to enter appearance and/or fails to file details/documents/submission in response to notice of hearing issued

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Green Acres Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai

ITA 5411/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: the CIT(A) raising the following ground of appeal: "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in allowing deduction of Rs.2,94,53,331/- u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of interest earned from deposits from Co-operative bank whereas the deduction allowable u/s.80P(2)(d) is for investments in a co-operative society.

For Appellant: Shri Kumar KaleFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh
Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Assessee is granted liberty to revise grounds raised in appeal before CIT(A). The Learned CIT(A) is directed to grant reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. In terms of the aforesaid, Ground No.1 and 2 raised by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purpose. 8. In result