← 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

Mahle Anand Thermal Systems Private Limited, Pune vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, the appeal and the CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 333/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri R D OnkarFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)

notified rule takes precedence over the provisions of Law. 4. The CIT(A) erred in passing the order in haste without providing an opportunity of being heard i.e. opportunity to make submissions by appearing in virtual mode through video conferencing) and without appreciating that the facts in the impugned year

DCIT, Circle-8, Pune vs. Mahle Anand Thermal Systems Pvt. Ltd., Pune

ITA 228/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri R D OnkarFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA

DCIT, Circle-8, Pune vs. Mahale Anand Thermal Systems Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, the appeal and the CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 127/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri R D OnkarFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)

notified rule takes precedence over the provisions of Law. 4. The CIT(A) erred in passing the order in haste without providing an opportunity of being heard i.e. opportunity to make submissions by appearing in virtual mode through video conferencing) and without appreciating that the facts in the impugned year

Santosh Reddysheetywar, Adilabad vs. ITO., Ward-(1), Nirmal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for sta"s"cal purposes

ITA 1299/HYD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 1299/Hyd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Santosh Reddysheetywar, Income Tax Officer, Adilabad. Vs. Ward-(1), [Pan : Afkpr1479K] Nirmal. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Y.V. Bhanu Narayan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Aravindakshan, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)

parte order. Therefore, learned AR pleaded to remit the ma"er back to the file of the learned CIT(A) for one more opportunity of being heard. 5. Learned Departmental Representa"ve (“learned DR”) heavily relied on the orders of the lower authori"es and submi"ed that onus ... learned CIT(A) to take a fresh look at the ma"er, Page 3 of 5 Santosh Reddysheetywar a"er affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds are accordingly treated as allowed for sta"s"cal purposes. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee

Lycos Internet Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1769/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, СА
Section 14ASection 249(4)(a)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

erroneous both in law and on facts. 2. The Pr. CIT erred in passing order u/s 263 of the Act without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 3. The Ld. Pr. CIT erred in rejecting the submissions of the appellant merely on presumption that neither the Assessing ... with the direction to the Assessing Officer to examine the discrepancies and assess the correct income by redoing the assessment afresh after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 14. Before the Tribunal, the learned AR of the assessee has submitted that in the return of income, the assessee

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad vs. Lycos Internet Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1550/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1550/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Lycos Internet Ltd Income Tax, Circle 16 (1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaacl5827B (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1769/Hyd/2018 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Lycos Internet Ltd Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, Circle 16 (1) Pan:Aaacl5827B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Bala Krishna, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22/01/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Are Two Appeals, One By The Department Against The Order Dated 23/06/2017 Of The Learned Cit (A) & Another By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 26/02/2018 Passed

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT(DR)
Section 14ASection 263

with the direction to the Assessing Officer to examine the discrepancies and assess the correct income by redoing the assessment afresh after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 14. Before the Tribunal, the learned AR of the assessee has submitted that in the return of income, the assessee ... assessing officer is directed to examine the above discrepancies and assess the correct income by redoing the assessment afresh after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessment order dated 29 03 2016 stands revised accordingly”. 18. Thus,, the order of the Assessing Officer was set aside/revised

Maa Vaisho Seva Samiti AOP- Trust, Chennai vs. CIT(Exemption) Chennai, Chennai

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

ITA 2427/CHNY/2024[2024]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2427/Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2024 Maa Vaishno Seva Samiti, The Commissioner Of Income Tax B-402, Sakthi Towers, (Exemptions), No.349, Mrh Road, Chennai Madhavaram, Chennai-60 [Pan: Aaftm5051J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri M.Karunakaran, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri M.Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 12A

direct the Ld.CIT(E ) to reconsider assessee’s application in Form-10AB dated 06.03.2024 for grant of registration u/s. 12AB, after giving due opportunity of being heard and by passing a speaking order, subject to payment of cost of Rs.25,000/- by the assessee to the Tamil Nadu State Legal

Ramasamy Solaisamy, Virudhunagar vs. ITO, Ncc-2, Madurai

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

ITA 2397/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2397 /Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2017-18 Ramasamy Solaisamy Income Tax Officer, No.9E, Chairman, Non-Corp., Npsn Arumugam Road, Circle-2, Sivakasi Viruthunagar, Madurai Tamil Nadu-626 123. [Pan: Acvps7427C] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : None प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Sheila Parthasarthy, Addl.Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.12.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms.Sheila Parthasarthy, Addl.CIT
Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

readjudicate the appeal. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and direct him to readjudicate the matter after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and passing a speaking order. He will also direct the Ld.AO to submit the remand report after considering

K.G. Boopathi, Vellore vs. ITO, Ward-2, Vellore

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

ITA 2372/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2372 /Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2017-18 K.G.Boopathi, Income Tax Officer, Periya Kasinaickappati Village & Non Corp, Ward-2, Post, Kandili Tirupattur, Vellore Vellore-635901. [Pan: Apdpb5581R] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri M.Karunakaran, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Sheila Parthasarthy, Addl.Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.12.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : This Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1057454214(1) Dated 27.10.2023 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Herein After “Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[Nfac], Delhi, For The Assessment Years 2017- 18. Through The Aforesaid Appeal The Assesse Has Challenged Order U/S 250 Dated 27.10.2023 Passed By Nfac, Delhi. 2.0 It Has Been Noted That There Is A Delay Of 255 Days In The Case, In Filing Of This Appeal Before The Tribunal. In Its Affidavit The Assesse Has Pleaded That The Ld.Cit(A) Had Called For A Remand Report From The Ld. Ao, Consequent To Which Assessee Had Filed Requested Details Before The Page - 1 - Of 4 :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Shri M.Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Sheila Parthasarthy, Addl.CIT
Section 144Section 144ASection 250

like to take up the issue of the Ld.AO non-compliance with his supervisory authorities. The CIT(A) shall give due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee shall comply with all the notices of the Ld.CIT(A). Any non- compliance on the part of the assessee

Ufx Ventures Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-3(2), Chennai

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

ITA 2358/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2358 /Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2012-13 Ufx Ventures Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.33/1, Wallajah Road, Corporate Circle-3(2), Chepauk, Chennai. Chennai-600 002. [Pan: Aabcc4581E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Ms.Shilpa Susan Kuraichan, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Sheila Parthasarthy, Addl.Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : This Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1066180820(1) Dated 28.06.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Herein After “Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[Nfac], Delhi, For The Assessment Years 2012- 13. Through The Aforesaid Appeal The Assesse Has Challenged Order U/S 250 Dated 28.06.2024 Passed By Nfac, Delhi. 2.0 It Has Been Noted That There Is A Delay Of 12 Days In The Case, In Filing Of This Appeal Before The Tribunal. In Its Affidavit The Director Of Assessee Company Has Pleaded That There Was A Family Function At The Native Place As A Result Of Which Appeal Got Delayed .All These Activities Page - 1 - Of 5 :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Ms.Shilpa Susan Kuraichan, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Sheila Parthasarthy, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 250

necessary opportunities to the assessee. The issue however is that the assessee had challenged before the Ld.CIT(A) that he was not given opportunity of being heard by the Ld.AO, a fact which contributed to requisition of remand report. No doubt, the Ld.AO has wasted 7 to 8 years ... immediate submission of remand report and also of fixing the responsibility for hitherto made non-submission. The CIT(A) shall give due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee shall comply with all the notices of the Ld.CIT(A). Any non-compliance on the part

Rockfort and Polymed Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu 1 Chennai, Chennai

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

ITA 1003/CHNY/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1003 /Chny/2023 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2006-07 Rockfort & Polymed Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.39, Hunters Road, Large Tax Payers Unit(Ltu), Choolai S.O, Perambur, Chennai Purasawalkam, Chennai-600 112. [Pan: Aaacr3242C] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri P.M.Kathir, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vinod.D.Mudaliar, Jcit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri P.M.Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod.D.Mudaliar, JCIT
Section 250

direction, the order passed by lower authorities is set aside and the Ld.CIT(A) is directed to readjudicate the appeal by giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and by passing a speaking order. The assessee shall comply with all notices issued by the Ld.CIT

Meher Nosherwan Jehangir, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-19(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6211/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjeemeher Nosherwan Jehangir Vs Income-Tax Officer, 4, Darbhanga Mansion, 12/A Ward 19(2)(2), Mumbai Michael Road, Cumballa Hill S.O., Piramal Chambers, Lower Parel Mumbai-400 026 Mumbai Pan : Aanpj4670J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: ShriAsif Karmali (SR DR)
Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

also find that the error originated from the CPC, which made the adjustment without affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In light of these facts, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the file of the Ld. AO for a fresh examination of the issue ... concurred with the observations of the Bench. It is needless to state that the assessee should be given a fair opportunity of being heard during the proceedings before the Ld. AO. At the same time, the assessee is expected to act diligently and cooperate fully during the reassessment proceedings

Anjuman E Farogh E Islam Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption)-1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5544/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri A.S. MithwaniFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali, Sr.DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

raised the following grounds: - "1. That the LD ADDL/JCIT Gurugram has erred by not asking us to submit the Books of Accounts and opportunity of being heard and did not gave us sufficient opportunity to present details and proofs of expenses. 2. That LD ADDL/JCIT Gurugram erred

Me N Moms Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Mumbai

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

ITA 1606/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2017-18 Me N Moms Private Limited, Pr. Commissioner Of 2 Amar Chs, 8Th Road, Income Tax-4, Khar (W), Vs. 6Th Floor, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, Pan : Aaecm6253C M.K.Road, Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Heliwal, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

order passed by the Ld.PCIT and restore all the issues to his file for passing the revision order afresh, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also direct the assessee to fully co-operate with the Ld.PCIT for expeditious completion of the restored proceedings

Suburban Builders Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO-8(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1135/MUM/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Ms. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kapadia, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

inclined to 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. We clarify that the Ld. Commissioner would be at liberty to verify as to whether the Assessee has filed the relevant

Smt. Usha Sharma, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 480/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Eagle Hunter Solutions Vs Commissioner Of Income Limited Tax (Appeals)-25 61C, Kalu Sarai, Sarvapriya New Delhi Vihar, New Delhi-110016 Pan: Aabce0565E Appellant Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 270A(2)Section 270A(2)(a)Section 36(1)

Income Tax Act, 1961. That the Assessment Unit Income Tax Department erred in fact and law as well by not providing reasonable opportunity of being heard.” 3. Facts briefly stated, the Assessee filed the return of income declaring total income at Rs.1,78,55,210/-. The assessment was completed

Kamna Jain, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Dhamtari, Dhamtari

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

ITA 550/RPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 550/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Smt. Kamna Jain C/O. Sapna Steel, Arihant Building, Bastar Road, Dhamtari (C.G.)-493 773 Pan: Achpj0044L

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 147Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

fairness be restored to the file of the CIT(Appeals) with a direction to re-adjudicate the same after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Ld. AR in order to buttress his claim had taken me through the “screen shot” of the acknowledgement letter that ... Appeals) with a direction to 10 Smt. Kamna Jain Vs. ITO, Ward-Dhamtari him to re-adjudicate the same after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee who shall remain at a liberty to raise the additional ground of appeal which has been raised before

Shree Shanti Industries, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Raipur

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

ITA 545/RPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 545/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shree Shanti Industries Heerapur, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Abcfs3156Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

case and in law, the Id. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre has defied the principles of natural justice by not allowing proper opportunity of being heard. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre ... therefore, the latter’s order is liable to be set-aside with a direction to re-adjudicate the same after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee firm. The Ld. AR in support of his aforesaid contention relied on the order of the ITAT, Raipur

M/S Shri Mangalam Traders, Mahasamund, Mahasamud vs. Income Tax Officer, Mahasamund, Mahasamud

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

ITA 538/RPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.538/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Shri Mangalam Traders 1, Village-Parsada, Post- Bemcha, Tehsil: Mahasamund-493 445 (C.G.) Pan : Abdfs1546F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Mahasamund (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prafulla Pendse, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

therefore, the latter’s order is liable to be set-aside with a direction to re-adjudicate the same after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee firm. 8. Per contra, Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, the Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) relied on the order ... file for fresh adjudication. Needless to say, the CIT(Appeals) shall in the course of the set-aside proceedings afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee firm which shall remain at a liberty to substantiate its aforesaid claim on the basis of fresh documentary evidence

M/S. Tirupati Agri Brokers, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward-1 (2) (4), Rajkot

ITA 275/RJT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.275/Rjt/2023

ITA No.275/RJT/2023-A.Y. 2015-16 Tirupati Agri Brokers vs. ITO Ward-1(2)(4), Rajkot. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL