← 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

Hashambhai Nazerally Rangwala Kakkai Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6171/MUM/2024[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2025-26

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep D. Darji, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Smt Neena Jeph, Ld. CIT D.R
Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(b)

impugned order and remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee for removing the objectionable clause i.e. 1(c) of the objects and any other clause of the objects

Special Crawl Foundation, Mumbai vs. Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 5969/MUM/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT(A) DR
Section 12ASection 80G

application made by the assessee for grant of registration u/s. 12A and 80G, afresh. Needless to say, assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard and to make any further submissions, if so required. Ld. CIT(E) may pass the order afresh after considering the facts on record

Special Crawlfoundation, Mumbai vs. Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 5968/MUM/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT(A) DR
Section 12ASection 80G

application made by the assessee for grant of registration u/s. 12A and 80G, afresh. Needless to say, assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard and to make any further submissions, if so required. Ld. CIT(E) may pass the order afresh after considering the facts on record

Vijay Laxmi Garg, Pali vs. ACIT, Circle, Pali

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

ITA 256/JODH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Hon'Ble

debtors in the books of account of the assessee and counter verification form the debtors while passing assessment de novo after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. Per contra, the Ld. DR stands by the impugned order, however, he has no objection in remanding the matter ... Company vs. CIT reported in 249 ITR 216 in which their Lordships of Supreme Court of India observed as under: "Assessment - Opportunity of being heard - Setting aside of assessment - Assessment order must be made after the assessee has been given reasonable opportunity of setting out his case - Same not done

Shivajs Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Jodhpur

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

ITA 185/JODH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Hon'Ble

Section 246ASection 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

counsel for the assessee submitted that the Id. JCIT (A) Delhi has rejected the appeal of the assessee without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard and rejected the appeal by passing an order ex-parte qua the assessee, without considering the submission & documentary evidence filed on record and recorded incorrect ... regarding service of the notices on the appellant assessee. Meaning thereby that the Ld. JCIT(A) has rejected the appeal without granting sufficient opportunity of being heard in violation of principles of natural justice. 5. We know that as per provisions of the Section

Ashok Kumar Pandey, Dhanbad vs. Pr. CIT, Dhanbad

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 11/RAN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi24 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 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

Deepak Kakar, Ferozpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Ferozpur

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 409/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayxsftrtot U/Ita No. 409/Asr/2024 / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Deepak Kakar, The Ito, <Shw Mohalla Dhanwala Wala, Ward-3(1), Closed Street, Ferozepur Ferozepur City, Punjab 152002 Tt./Pan No: Ctzpk1764P H^L^Ff/Respondent 3| 4] Cl |'4F/Appellant ( Hybridhearing ) <Ivjcj?! $/ Revenue By :Shri Davinder Pal Singh, Sr. Dr 3{N Tf/Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Davinder Pal Singh, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 195

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. \ 409-Asr-2024 Deepak Kumar, Ferozepur 3 That the appellant craves leave for any addition, 7. deletion or amendment in thegrounds of appeal ... conducted at the back of the appellant. While framing the assessment, Ld. AO erred in 4. concluding assessment u/s 144 without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and making addition of Rs. 32,44,373/- (u/s 194A

Bishal Kumar Roy, Raipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 548/RPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.548/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Bishal Kumar Roy 1702 Emerald Regency Towers, Anand Nagar, Thane, Kasavadawali, Thane-400 615 Pan: Agmpr4116N

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

matter came up before the ITAT, it had failed to address the infirmity regarding the fact that the assessee was not afforded proper opportunity of being heard and the matter was dismissed ex-parte by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC which amounted to violation of principles of natural justice ... part of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In light of such decision, the petitioner ought to have been granted an opportunity of being heard which, partakes the characteristic of the fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 11. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -3, Surat vs. Bharatbhai Kanjibhai Kakadiya, Surat

In the result, deletion of unsecured loan of Rs

ITA 391/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.391/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Bharatbhai Kanjibhai Kakadiya Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Vs. 27, Hans Society, Varachha Road, Surat, Room No.507, 5Th Floor, Varachha, Surat-395 006 Aatyakar Bhawan, Majura Gate,Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Afmpk 5646 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.312/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2016-17) Bharatbhai Kanjibhai Kakadiya Assistant Commissioner Of 27, Hans Society, Varachha Road, Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Varachha, Surat-395 006 Surat, Room No.507, 5Th Floor, Aatyakar Bhawan, Majura Gate,Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Afmpk 5646 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 132(4)Section 147Section 250Section 44ASection 68

appellant, we set aside the matter back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee. This ground of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 9. Ground No. 1 to 3 of Revenue’s appeal and Ground ... file of CIT(A) to decide the issue of unsecured loans of Rs.26,00,000/- afresh in accordance with law after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to assessee. The assessee is directed to furnish all requisite details as and when called for by CIT(A). Ground No.2 of assessee

Bharatbhai Kanjibhai Kakadiya, Surat vs. Assistant Registrar, Central Circle-3, Surat

In the result, deletion of unsecured loan of Rs

ITA 312/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.391/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Bharatbhai Kanjibhai Kakadiya Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Vs. 27, Hans Society, Varachha Road, Surat, Room No.507, 5Th Floor, Varachha, Surat-395 006 Aatyakar Bhawan, Majura Gate,Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Afmpk 5646 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.312/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2016-17) Bharatbhai Kanjibhai Kakadiya Assistant Commissioner Of 27, Hans Society, Varachha Road, Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Varachha, Surat-395 006 Surat, Room No.507, 5Th Floor, Aatyakar Bhawan, Majura Gate,Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Afmpk 5646 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 132(4)Section 147Section 250Section 44ASection 68

appellant, we set aside the matter back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee. This ground of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 9. Ground No. 1 to 3 of Revenue’s appeal and Ground ... file of CIT(A) to decide the issue of unsecured loans of Rs.26,00,000/- afresh in accordance with law after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to assessee. The assessee is directed to furnish all requisite details as and when called for by CIT(A). Ground No.2 of assessee

Seth Badri Prasad Ummedi Devi Paropkari Trust, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Jaipur

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

ITA 1529/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-VH a
Section 12ASection 144Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

That the Ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in passing arbitrarily and unjustifiably the impugned order ex parte without providing to the appellant opportunity of being heard and accordingly the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. GROUND OF APPEAL No.3 & 4 Both these grounds of appeal are against sustaining ... assessee prayed that the Ld. AO has passed the ex-parte order and the assessee was not provided adequate opportunity of being heard. All the trustees are senior citizens. Even Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated that renewal of FDR cannot consider as income. Thus, the assessee may be provided

Anil Kumar Nandwana, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(2), Jaipur

Appeal is disposed of for statistical purposes, and consequently, the appeal filed before the ld

ITA 1368/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकरअपील सं. / ITA No. 1368/JPR/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/ Assessment Year: 2013-14 | बनाम | The ITO | Ward 7 (2) Shri Anil Kumar Nandwana Boharo Ka Mohalla, Bagru, Jaipur Vs. Jaipur | स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAYPN 3129 P | अपीलार्थी / Appellant | प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assessee by : Shri Saurav Harsh, Advocate राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

disposed of by ANIL KUMAR NANDWANA VS ITO, WARD 7(2), JAIPUR Learned CIT(A) afresh, in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. File be consigned to the record room, after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open

Alok Kumar Jain, Pearl Pleasure vs. ACIT Cir-6, Jaipur, New Cerntral Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Rajasthan

ITA 1191/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Sh. Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69A

circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A) erred in passing Impugned order u/s 250 of the Act without providing opportunity of being heard. 3. Under facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has grossly erred in confirming the assumption

Hudhyashwar Nagari Sahakari Path Sansta Maryadit, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Nashik

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

ITA 12/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.12/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Hudhyashwar Nagari Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Nashik. Sahakari Path Sansta Maryadit, Samarth Apartment, Sramik Nagar, Satpur, Nashik- 422012. Pan : Aabth3975L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi Revenue By : Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar Date Of Hearing : 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Manish Borad, Am: This Appeal Filed At The Instance Of Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 30.10.2024 Which Is Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 144 Of The Act For Assessment Year 2017-18 Framed On 28.11.2019 By The Ito, Wart-1(1), Nashik.

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar
Section 144

have alleged to have given cash to the assessee society. For carrying out this exercise, Ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer shall provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds

Muktagiri Muktagan Social Foundation, Satara vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 2667/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Mar 2025

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2666 & 2667/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : - Muktagiri Muktagan Social V The Cit Exemption, Foundation, S Pune. Muktagiri Gbhavan, 455/1/17, Sadar Bazar, Satara – 415002. Maharashtra Pan: Aagtm6447B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Amok Khairnan – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/03/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune Rejecting The Application For Grant Of Registration 12A & U/S.80G Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

case, we set-aside the order of the ld.CIT(E) to ld.CIT(E) for denovo adjudication. The ld.CIT(E) shall provide opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee shall file all the necessary ITA Nos.2666 & 2667/PUN/2024 [A] documents before the ld.CIT(E). Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised ... case, we set-aside the order of the ld.CIT(E) to ld.CIT(E) for denovo adjudication. The ld.CIT(E) shall provide opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee shall file all the necessary documents before the ld.CIT(E). Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Muktagiri Muktagan Social Foundation, Satara vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 2666/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Mar 2025

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2666 & 2667/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : - Muktagiri Muktagan Social V The Cit Exemption, Foundation, S Pune. Muktagiri Gbhavan, 455/1/17, Sadar Bazar, Satara – 415002. Maharashtra Pan: Aagtm6447B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Amok Khairnan – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/03/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune Rejecting The Application For Grant Of Registration 12A & U/S.80G Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

case, we set-aside the order of the ld.CIT(E) to ld.CIT(E) for denovo adjudication. The ld.CIT(E) shall provide opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee shall file all the necessary ITA Nos.2666 & 2667/PUN/2024 [A] documents before the ld.CIT(E). Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised ... case, we set-aside the order of the ld.CIT(E) to ld.CIT(E) for denovo adjudication. The ld.CIT(E) shall provide opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee shall file all the necessary documents before the ld.CIT(E). Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Hinjewadi Cultural Association, Pune vs. CIT-Exemption, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2465/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Mar 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2464 & 2465/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : N.A. Hinjewadi Cultural Association, V The Commissioner Of Blue Ridge Township, Tower-2, S Income Flat-1501, Hinjewadi Phase-1, Tax(Exemption), Pune. Rajiv Gandhi National Park, Pune – 411057. Pan: Aadah9057Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Amol Khairnar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/03/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Manish Borad, Am: These Two Appeal Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune Rejecting The Application For Grant Of Registration U/S.12A & U/S.80G Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Respectively.

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

have been treated as delayed application. 4. The learned CIT (Exemption), Pune; erred in law and on facts in not providing sufficient reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant, as provided u/s 80G of the ITA. 1961, to submit the details / information. Appellant contends that, Appellant is keen ... registration u/s 12A of ITA, 1961. 3. The learned CIT (Exemption), Pune; erred in law and facts in not providing sufficient reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant, as provided u/s 12AB of the ITA, 1961; to submit the details / information. Appellant contends that, Appellant is keen to ensure

Hinjewadi Cultural Association, Pune vs. CIT (E), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2464/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Mar 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2464 & 2465/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : N.A. Hinjewadi Cultural Association, V The Commissioner Of Blue Ridge Township, Tower-2, S Income Flat-1501, Hinjewadi Phase-1, Tax(Exemption), Pune. Rajiv Gandhi National Park, Pune – 411057. Pan: Aadah9057Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Amol Khairnar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/03/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Manish Borad, Am: These Two Appeal Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune Rejecting The Application For Grant Of Registration U/S.12A & U/S.80G Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Respectively.

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

have been treated as delayed application. 4. The learned CIT (Exemption), Pune; erred in law and on facts in not providing sufficient reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant, as provided u/s 80G of the ITA. 1961, to submit the details / information. Appellant contends that, Appellant is keen ... registration u/s 12A of ITA, 1961. 3. The learned CIT (Exemption), Pune; erred in law and facts in not providing sufficient reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant, as provided u/s 12AB of the ITA, 1961; to submit the details / information. Appellant contends that, Appellant is keen to ensure

I M C of Govt Industrial Training Institute Jath, Sangli vs. CIT (E), Pune

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

ITA 1499/PUN/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Mar 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1499/Pun/2024

For Appellant: Shri Amol KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 12A

reported in AIR 1978 SC 597 has laid down that, the rule of fair hearing is necessary before passing any order, the opportunity of being heard should be real, reasonable and effective and same should not be for namesake, it should not be a paper opportunity, the doctrine of natural

Ramulu Manthri, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 5/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri VVS Ankith, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

addition made by the A.O of Rs. 94,87,670/- without considering the evidences filed by the appellant and without proving an opportunity of being heard. 7. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal either before or during the hearing ... Ward-15(1), Hyderabad in ITA.No.362/Hyd./2024 vide order dated 17.12.2024 and decide the issue in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8 ITA.No.5/Hyd/2025 8. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced