“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

Devyani Deepak Rawtal, Nagpur vs. ITO(It&Tp) Bhopal, Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 129/IND/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 Feb 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 144C(1)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

direction to make a reference to the DVO as contemplated u/s 50C(2) and thereafter decide the issue afresh after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Needless to mention that while finalizing this issue, the AO would be at liberty to invoke the procedure

M/S Credo Assets Pvt. Ltd., Rupnagar Punjab vs. DCIT/ACIT(Cen)-1 Chd, Chandigarh

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 484/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.487/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S Singla Builders & Promoters Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-6503-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.482/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.484/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Credo Assets Private Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265-C, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-6400-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) & Smt. Shruti Khandelwal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) & Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Drs (Virtual) Date Of Final Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2026

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) & Smt. ShrutiFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) & Shri Rajat Kumar

Section 127Section 132Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 69ASection 69B

ground realities, documents furnished and produced before him: 6.4 The DVO has issued the report without confronting the issues and without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard; 6.5 In respect of construction expense of a builder, the addition could not have been made u/s 69B on the basis of report ... passed by Ld. AO and then by Worthy CIT(A) deserves to be quashed since the same have been passed without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard. 11. That the appellant craves leave for any addition, deletion or amendment in the grounds of appeal on or before the disposal

Saket Sushil Tibrewal, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 59/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Chirag Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 68

restore the matter to his file with a direction to adjudicate the issue afresh in accordance with law, after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. A.Y. 2019-20 9. Since the facts and issues involved in A.Y. 2019-20 are identical, the above directions shall apply mutatis

Saket Sushil Tibrewal, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 58/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Chirag Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 68

Shri Shantinath Foundation, Ahmedabad vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2296/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Feb 2026

Bench: Us Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

registration under section 12A(1)(ac) (ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide order dated 30.09.2025, without affording effective and sufficient opportunity of being heard thereby violating principles of natural justice. 2. That the Ld. CIT (Exemptions) failed to appreciate that the delay in responding to the notices dated

Jalpaiguri Zilla Regulated Market Committee, Jalpaiguri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Jalpaiguri

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

ITA 2732/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2732/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Jalpaiguri Zilla Regulated Market Committee..…………………..………………....…………………....Appellant Jalpaiguri Sadar, Jalpaiguri, W.B 735101.. [Pan: Aacaj0159Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Jalpaiguri...…….……....…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Pradeep Agarwal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Satyajit Mandal, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 02, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 03, 2026 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 19.09.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In The Case Of The Assessee Information Was Received By The Assessing Officer That The Assessee Had Deposited Substantial Cash In Its Savings Bank Account Maintained With Indian Overseas Bank During The Assessment Year 2016–17. It Is An Admitted Fact That The Assessee Did Not File Any Return Of Income Under Section 139(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, Proceedings Under Section 148A Of The Act Were Initiated. Show-Cause Notice Under Section 148A(B) Was Issued & Thereafter An Order Under Section

Section 10Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 250

section 10(26AAB) of the Act after considering the Notification dated 17.10.2014 issued by the Government of West Bengal and after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to file all relevant documents to substantiate its claim. In terms of the above appeal

Rohit Kumar, Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. the United Provinces Sugar Company Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

ITA 1130/KOL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2024-25 Ito, Ward-12(1), Kolkata…..……..……….………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. M/S The United Provinces Sugar Company Pvt. Ltd.…….....……...…..…..Respondent 1St Floor, Chartered Bank Building, 4, Netaji Subhash Road, Kol-1. [Pan: Aaact4947L] Appearances By: Shri S B Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri J P Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 20, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 03, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.03.2025 Of The Addl/Jcit(A)-9, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2024–25. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 11.10.2024 Claiming A Refund Of Rs.15,61,200/- Pursuant To Set-Off Of Brought Forward Business Loss Against The Returned Income. Intimation Order U/S. 143(1) Of The Act Was Directly Passed On 01.11.2024, Assessing A Refund Of Rs.16,22,410/- & Allowing Setoff Of Brought Forward Loss Against Income As Done In The Return Of Income. However, The Order Did Not Capture The Schedule Of Carry Forward Business Loss & Unabsorbed Depreciation For Earlier Years. M/S The United Provinces Sugar Company Pvt. Ltd 3. Aggrieved By The Above Order, The Assessee Filed Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee By Observing As Under:

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

that the impugned intimation order passed by the Assessing Officer without 3 M/s The United Provinces Sugar Company Pvt. Ltd giving any opportunity of being heard and no power is vested with the Assessing Officer u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act to disallow carry forward of loss. He states

Reshma Ketan Doshi, Bagalkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Bagalkot

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

ITA 1995/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing

Section 115BSection 69A

shall examine the above material objectively and in accordance with law and shall pass a speaking order after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Needless to say, if the assessee fails to produce cogent evidence establishing such nexus and continuity of cash, the AO shall

Rajesh Gujjar, Bagalkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Bagalkot

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

ITA 1994/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing

Section 115BSection 69A

Hasmukh Hiralal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 22(1)(6), Mumbai

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

ITA 7532/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarhasmukh Hiralal Shah National Faceless 9/13, Nehru Nagar, Opp. Appeal Centre Bdd Chawl No. 9, Worli Vs. /Ito-22(1)(6), Mumbai-400 018 Room No. 206, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai – 400 012 Pan/Gir No. Aavps2340A (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Ritesh Misra, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 03.02.2026

Section 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 56(2)(x)Section 69

order of the learned CIT(A) be set aside and the matter be restored to his file for fresh adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard. 11. The learned AR also reiterated that the property was under construction, jointly purchased with the assessee’s wife, that only part payments ... direction to decide the appeal afresh on merits, in accordance with law, after 7 Hasmukh Hiralal Shah affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to cooperate in the appellate proceedings and to file all necessary submissions and evidences in support of his case

Harish Hari Gandhi, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 33(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7509/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarharish Hari Gandhi Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Shop No.1, Gokul Monarch, Tax, Circle 33(1), Mumbai Room No. 949, 9Th Floor, Kautilya Thakur Complex, Kandivali (East), Mumbai-400101 Bhawan, G-Block, Bandra (E), Pan:Aadpg1721F Mumbai-400051 Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Paras Savla, Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Misra (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/02/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (Jm): The Instant Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax Addl/Jcit(A), Thiruvanantpuram [For Brevity ‘The Ld.Cit(A)], Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (For Brevity ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2017-18, Date Of Order 10.09.2025. The Impugned Order Emanated From The Order Of The Ld. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri Paras SavlaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 43CSection 48

submission that the valuation be ascertained by referring the matter to the DVO. Needless to say, the assessee shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessment is thus set aside on this limited issue for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. 7 Harish Hari Gandhi

ACIT, Mumbai vs. Raheja Universal Pvt Limited, Mumbai

ITA 5344/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 36(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJ

Bhavik Shashikant Thakkar, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 27(1), Vashi Mumbai

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

ITA 5208/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarbhavik Shashikant Thakkar Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income G 601 Kukreja Palace Tax, Ward 27(1), Mumbai 4Th Floor, Tower No.6, Vashi Station Opportunity Pok, Maharashtra-400075 Complex, Vashi-400703 Pan: Acypt3095J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nishit Gandhi, Adv Respondent By : Ms. Rajni Rani Roy (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/02/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (Jm): The Instant Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi [For Brevity ‘The Ld. Cit(A)], Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (For Brevity ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2012-13, Date Of Order 28.11.2022. The Impugned Order Emanated From The Order Of The Ld. Acit-27(1), Mumbai (For Brevity The “Ld. Ao”), Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Date Of Order 24.03.2015 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rajni Rani Roy (CIT DR)

Section 143(3)Section 250

assessment order. Considering the peculiar facts and the personal hardships faced by the assessee, we are of the view that reasonable opportunity of being heard was not afforded to him. Accordingly, in the interest of natural justice, we restore the matter to the file

Richa Nangia, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle 25, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 811/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 153CSection 153DSection 69Section 69ASection 69C

facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without affording proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard. 1.2 That in absence of proper service of notice or grant of sufficient opportunity, the impugned order has been passed in contravention

Richa Nangia, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle 25, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 810/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 153CSection 153DSection 69Section 69ASection 69C

Charinangal Service Cooperative Society, Jajpur vs. ITO, Jajpur Ward, Jajpur

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

ITA 692/CTK/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.692/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-2020) Charinangal Service Vs Ito Ward-Jajpur, Jajpur Cooperaztive Society Charinangal, Po: Charinangal, Jajpur, Odisha-754296 Pan No. : Aabac 6871 D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ananta Narayan Singhbabu & Dr. Sanjay Behura, Ars राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/02/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.09.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2019-2020 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld.Ar That The Assessee Admittedly Not Produced The Evidence Before The Ao. The Assessee Had Produced The Evidences Before The Ld.Cit(A) . It Was Submission That The Ld.Cit(A) Did Not Admit The Additional Evidences On Account Of Violation Of Provision Of Rule 46A Of The It Rule. It Was The Prayer That The Issues May Be Restored To The File Of The Assessing Officer, So That The Assessee Would Be Able To Produce All The Evidences Before The Ao. 3. In Reply, The Ld.Cit Dr Vehemently Supported The Orders Of The Ao & Cit(A). It Was Submission That The Assessee Was Totally Non-

For Appellant: Shri Ananta Narayan Singhbabu & DrFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR

justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld. AO for readjudication afresh after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. However, looking to the recalcitrant attitude of the assessee, a cost of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twentyfive Thousand only) is hereby imposed

Bhagwan Traders (Firm), Saharsa vs. ITO, Ward- 3 (4), Saharsa

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

ITA 538/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahubhagwan Traders, Vs Ito, Ward-3(4), Saharsha, Bihar Gandaul, Ward No.02, Bhagwa, Saharsa-852216, Bihar Pan No. :Aaqfb 7313 R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Manab Adak, Jcit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/02/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Id. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 18.09.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. It Was The Submission That The Assessee Could Not Able To Produce The Documents Before The Authorities Below. It Was, Thus, Prayer That The Issues May Be Restored To The File Of Ld. Ao To Decide The Issue Afresh So That The Assessee Could Be Able To Provide All The Relevant Documents To Substantiate His Claim & Shall Cooperate In The Set Aside Proceedings. 3. In Reply, Ld Sr. Dr Submitted That Proper Opportunities Were Allowed & The Assessee Could Not Produce The Documents As Required By Both The Authorities Below. It Was Submitted That The Orders Passed By Both The Authorities Below Deserve To Be Upheld.

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manab Adak, JCIT-Sr.DR

justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld. AO for readjudication afresh after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the ld. AO in the readjudication proceedings, positively. 5. In the result, appeal

Shiv Kumar, Patna, Bihar vs. Dc/Ac Circle 4, Patna Bihar

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 537/PAT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manab Adak, JCIT-Sr. DR

appeals are restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for readjudication the issues afresh on merits after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee is directed to cooperate in the readjudication proceedings positively. 5. In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee

Bhaskar Rajaram Thorat, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Nashik

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2302/PUN/2025[2015 - 16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Feb 2026

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Chinmayy Pathak (virtual)For Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl.CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

deserves to be restored to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. Needless to mention that Ld.CIT(A) shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and then decide the issues in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant

Bhaskar Rajaram Thorat, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Nashik

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2300/PUN/2025[2015 - 16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Feb 2026

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Chinmayy Pathak (virtual)For Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl.CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A