“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 Gopinathji Jyotipith Foundation, Ahmedabad vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2099/AHD/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Feb 2025

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Samir Vora, AR on behalf of Shri S.N Divatia, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr. DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 8(1)Section 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

books, articles and plantation. 8. On going through the record, we find that no prejudice will be caused to the revenue, if the opportunity of being heard is given to the assessee. Hence, we hereby set-aside the orders passed by the Ld.CIT(E) and restore the matter

Shree Gopinathji Jyotipith Foundation, Ahmedabad vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2098/AHD/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Feb 2025

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Samir Vora, AR on behalf of Shri S.N Divatia, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr. DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 8(1)Section 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

Takshashila Education and Charitable Trust, Ahmedabad, Gujarat vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad, Gujarat

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

ITA 2055/AHD/2024[Not Applicable]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Feb 2025

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Adjournment Application filed

Section 80G(5)(iii)

file all necessary details. 4. On going through the record, we find that no prejudice will be caused to the revenue if the opportunity of being heard is given to the assessee. Hence, we hereby direct that the matter may be examined afresh by the Ld.CIT(E). The assessee shall

Janak Sureshbhai Patel L/H of Late Arunaben Sureshbhai Patel, Vadodara vs. Thje Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 1790/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Kamlesh Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54Section 54F

circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have set aside the order of the Ld. A.O. and directed him to give fresh opportunity of being heard and pass the appropriate order considering the facts and your appellant prays that the orders ... aside and the matter be restored to the Ld. AO to pass the order fresh after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard.” Janak Sureshbhai Patel L/h of late Arunaben S. Patel Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 2– 3. In this case, assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act was originally

M/S Sunrise Dairy Pvt Ltd, Ahmednagar vs. ITO Ward 2, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 2409/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2409/Pun/2024 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Sunrise Dairy Pvt. Vs Ito Ward 2, Ltd., Ahmednagar Gut No. 125, At Post Ranjankhol Tilaknagar, Shrirampur, Ahmednagar-413720 Maharashtra Pan-Aapcs7121J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Vinita ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar

Section 115BSection 147Section 250Section 68

Learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal, by not allowing the condonation of delay, without granting gra opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred ... Assessing Officer has passed the ex- parte, assessment order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without providing opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 2 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad vs. B.Ramalinga Raju, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 57/HYD/2020[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

obtained from the AO based on these documents. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) shall grant both 37 B. Ramalinga Raju parties an opportunity of being heard and decide the issue afresh. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. 29. In the result, the appeal

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad vs. B.Ramalinga Raju, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 55/HYD/2020[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

ITO, Ward - 11(1), Kolkata vs. Sumangal Forex & Travels Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

ITA 2211/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2211/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ito, Ward-11(1), Kolkata …………………………………………….…..……Appellant Vs. Sumangal Forex & Travels Pvt. Ltd…………...........……........……...…..…..Respondent 9, Baliaghata Road, Kol-700015. [Pan: Aavcs1781J] C.O. No.60/Kol/2024 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2211/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sumangal Forex & Travels Pvt. Ltd ……………….………………..….…..Cross-Objector 9, Baliaghata Road, Kol-700015. [Pan: Aavcs1781J] Vs. Ito, Ward-11(1), Kolkata................................................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Srikumar Banerjee, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Arun Kr. Tiwari, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 10, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 11, 2024 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Revenue Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Dated 25.07.2024 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] & The Assessee Has Filed The Corresponding Cross- Objection Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Engaged In Foreign Currency Exchange Business As Forex Dealer. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2018-19 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,45,236/-. Since, The Assessee Was Non-Responsive Before The Investigation Wing As Well As Before The Assessing Officer, The

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

reexamine by considering the documents filed by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) and before this Bench as well after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. So far as the cross-objection filed by the assessee is concerned, the assessee has not put any grievance

Kailash Shaw, Titagarh, North 24 Parganas vs. I.T.O., Ward - 52(2), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1799/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1799/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kailash Shaw…………………………………………………………..….……….Appellant 7, Jmg Road, Titagarh, North 24 Parganas – 700119. [Pan: Bqhps0311N] Vs. Ito, Ward-52(2), Kolkata................................................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Himadri Mukherjee, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 11, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 11, 2024 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 28.06.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 By Showing Total Income Of Rs.2,31,950/-. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass On The Issue That The Assessee Has Deposited Cash In Bank Accounts During The Demonetization Period For The Relevant Assessment Year. The Assessing Officer Issued Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act. In The Notice, The Assessing Officer Stated That The Assessee Has Deposited Cash Of Rs.5,70,000/- & Rs.7,48,000/- In Savings Accounts Of State Bank Of India. In Response, The Assessee Filed His Reply Stating That The Assessee’S Sister Basanti Keswri Handed Over Her Money To Deposit In Bank Accounts As She Cannot Operate Bank

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69A

file of the ld. CIT(A) to re-examine the case after 2 I.T.A. No.1799/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kailash Shaw providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) is directed to pass a fresh order after verifying the documents submitted by the assessee

Destiny Star (India) Private Limited, Surat vs. DCIT-Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 6430/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Pankaj JaiswalFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 7

this appeal also back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for meritorious de novo adjudication in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 4 Des"ny Star (India

Amsons Steel Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

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

ITA 5895/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2018-19 Amsons Steel Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, Plot No. A/16, National E-Assessment Centre Wagle Industrial Estate, Vs. Road No.8, Thane, Maharashtra Pan : Aaaca4716G (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Dr. K. Shivaram & Shri Shashi Bekal For Revenue : Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-02-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-02-2025 O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran, A.M : The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dt.20-09-2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟] & It Relates To Ay. 2018-19. 2. The Ld.Ar Appearing For The Assessee Submitted That The Ao Has Made Certain Additions By Disallowing The Expenses Claimed By The Assessee & Also Making Addition On The Basis Of Difference In Form- 26As. The Ld.Ar Submitted That The Assessee Had Asked For Hearing By Video Conference, But The Same Was Not Provided By The Ao. Further

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram &For Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr.DR

them afresh. We also direct the assessee to fully co- operate with the AO for expeditious completion of the assessment. After providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the AO may take appropriate decision in accordance with law on the impugned additions. 4. In the result, the appeal

Sanjay Tejkaran Agarwal, Thane(West) vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Thane, Thane (West)

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

ITA 4514/MUM/2024[2014]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R

Section 68

furnish evidence and the AO is directed to examine the same and decide the issues afresh after affording the assessee reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 11th February

Pfizer Products India Private Limited, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department and the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 4391/MUM/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ketav Ved a/w Ms. Riddhi Jain, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT D/R

Section 144

light of the financials of the two companies. Needless to mention that the assessee will be given reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard. 21. With the above directions, in respect of the third grievance, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 22. In the result, appeal of the assesse

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Yum Restaurents (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the Appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 2467/DEL/2016[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2025AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandra

Assessee preferred the captioned Appeals. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has provided no opportunity of being heard to the Assessee and in violation of principals of natural justice, dismissed the appeal of the Assessee. 5. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative ... Hind Exports Vs. ITO CIT(A) to decide the First Appeals afresh on merits in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 7. In the result, the Appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 19th

Abdul Majid Ward No 6 Mohalla Radio Statsion Haveli Poonch, Poonch vs. Romesh Kumar Sharma Income Tax Officer Jammu, Jammu

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

ITA 374/ASR/2023[ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Feb 2025

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahayi.T.A. No.374/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

eyes of law and the Ld. CIT(A) has also grossly erred in confirming the same. 5. That no reasonable and proper opportunity of being heard was allowed by the Assessing Officer before passing the order. Similarly, the worthy CIT (A) has also grossly erred in confirming the order

Rohit 62-Shri Ram Avenue Majitha Road Amritsar, Rohit vs. Smt Anjna Kapoor Income Tax Officer Ward 4(4) Amritsar, Income Tax Officer

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

ITA 363/ASR/2023[Assessment Year 2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Feb 2025

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahayi.T.A. No.363/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

Assessing Officer are both against the facts of this case and are untenable under the law. 2. That no reasonable and proper opportunity of being heard was allowed by the Assessing Officer before passing the said order. As such the assessment order passed is bad in the eyes ... grossly erred in passing ex-parte order without appreciating the facts of this case and without allowing any opportunity of being heard. The CIT(A) did not appreciate that no notice was ever served on the assessee. Otherwise I would have complied the notice if I received the same

Surendra Kumar Mishra, Allahabad vs. ACIT, Cir-2, Allahabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 140/ALLD/2023[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad10 Feb 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2002-03 Surendra Kumar Mishra, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 794A/1, Sohabatiyabagh, Income Tax, Circle-2, Allahabad Allahabad-211006, U.P. Pan:Aibpm4858R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashish Bansal, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.02.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Under Section 250 R.W.S. 254 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 26.10.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Dismissing The 'Additional Ground' Relating To Non-Issuance Of Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act, Raised Before The Appellate Authority During The Course Of First Round Of Litigation, Which Has Been Remanded Back By The Hon'Ble Itat In Terms Of Order Dated 09.11.2012, By Observing That The Return Filed By The Appellant In Terms Of Letter Dated 10.11.2008 As Not A Valid Return In Compliance To Notice Dated 11.02.2008 Issued Under Section 148 Of The Act, As The Said Letter Was Filed By The Appellant After The Time Limit Of 30 Days Provided To Do So In Terms Of Notice Dated 11.02.208 Issued Under Section 148 Of The Act. 2. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Observing That The Appellant Could Not Have Demand For Issuance Of Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The 1 Surendra Kumar Mishra

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 69C

with a direction to admit the additional grounds and to decide the same in accordance with law after giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard ,in the light of the judgments of the Hon’ble jurisdictional Allahabad High Court. 8 Surendra Kumar Mishra 6. The case was again taken

Subramaniam Swaminathan Iyer, Bhilai, Durg vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed/partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 71/RPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.71/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Subramaniam Swaminathan Iyer 12-A/7, Nehru Nagar, Bhilai (C.G.)-490 020 Pan: Anwps2381P

For Appellant: S/shri Milind Bhusari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 68

adjudication. Needless to say, the A.O shall in the course of the set-aside proceedings afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee who shall remain at a liberty to substantiate his claim on the basis of fresh documentary evidence, if any. Thus, the Ground of appeal No.3 ... direction to re-adjudicate the same. Needless to say, the A.O shall in the course of the set-aside proceedings afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee who shall remain at a liberty to substantiate his claim on the basis of fresh documentary evidence, if any. Thus

Yogendra Prasad Sharma, Patna vs. Dc/Ac Circle-6, Patna

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Patna10 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.06/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Yogendra Prasad Sharma………………………………………..………….……Appellant 0 Matukdhari Niwas, West Boring Canal Road Boring Road, Patna-800001. [Pan: Aoppd7881R] Vs. Dc/Ac, Circle-6, Patna……..……....….….. ……………….........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sagar Warsi, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit - Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 06, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 10, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 30.05.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 160 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause & The Delay Was Not Intentional. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.11,32,280/-

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

assessing officer. Hope you will accede to my request and oblige us. Further you are requested that before passing any order a proper opportunity of being heard will be provided to me for putting my part, if required.” 5.1 However, the ld. CIT(A) in his findings nothing has been ... remand back the issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to reexamine the issue afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. The ld. DR supported the decisions rendered by the authorities below. 7. We, after hearing both the parties

Mohd. Irshad Mohd. Latif Ahmad, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, 4(1), Nagpur

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

ITA 74/NAG/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Rachit ThakarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

adjudicate the matter afresh on merit and in accordance with 3 Mohd. Irshad Mohd. Latif Ahmad ITA no.74/Nag./2024 law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is also directed that the assessee should not seek adjournment without there being a justified reason. Accordingly