← 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

Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Vadodara

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

ITA 191/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.191/Ahd/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. Pr.Commissioner बनाम/ Sardar Patel Vidyut Bhavan Of Income V/S. Race Course Tax-1 Vadodaa – 390 007 Vadodara – 390 007 "ायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aadcm 7439 H (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43B

Officer is 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

Gourishankar Education Society, Satara vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1235/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1234 & 1235/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Gourishankar Education Vs. Cit, Exemption, Pune. Society, Panchganga Apartment, Opp. Axis Bank, Radhika Road, Satara- 415001. Pan : Aaatg6668A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2025 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 30.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit, Exemption, Pune U/S 263 Of The It Act For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1234/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2013-14 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 12ASection 13(2)(a)Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 263

revenue, & accordingly the Assessing Officer was directed to pass the assessment order afresh de novo for fresh determination of income after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and to examine the facts of the case on the basis of material available on record. Thus, the grounds

Gourishankar Education Society, Satara vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1234/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1234 & 1235/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Gourishankar Education Vs. Cit, Exemption, Pune. Society, Panchganga Apartment, Opp. Axis Bank, Radhika Road, Satara- 415001. Pan : Aaatg6668A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2025 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 30.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit, Exemption, Pune U/S 263 Of The It Act For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1234/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2013-14 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 12ASection 13(2)(a)Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 263

revenue, & accordingly the Assessing Officer was directed to pass the assessment order afresh de novo for fresh determination of income after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and to examine the facts of the case on the basis of material available on record. Thus, the grounds

Indus Biotech Limited, Pune vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune

Accordingly, this ground is allowed

ITA 122/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

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

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

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

Gurumachideva Vividhodeesha Sahakara Sangh Ltd., Udupi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Udupi

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

ITA 1345/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Respondent: Shri Mahesh .R. Uppin
Section 40A(7)Section 40A(7)(b)Section 43(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

circular to the facts and circumstances of the case and thereafter decide the Page 7 of 7 issue afresh after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open

Chheda Lal Shukla, Noida vs. ITO Ward - 1(2), Noida

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA No

ITA 1573/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Nirbhay Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Daya Inder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 153a

remit back the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer with the directions to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, for which Ld. DR has no objection. Assessee is directed to fully cooperate with the AO during the proceedings. We hold

Vishwanath Singh Rathode, Hoshangabad vs. Income Tax Officer-1, Itarsi

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

ITA 142/JAB/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur09 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18 Vishwanath Singh Rathode V. Income Tax Officer-1 Village Chapda Grahan, Income Tax Officer-1, Seonimalwa, Seonimalwa, Niyas Coloni Itarsi, Dist Madhya Pradesh-461221. Narmadapuram, Mp- 461111. Pan:Aezpr6401F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Bharat Sheogankar, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 08 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 09 01 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Sheogankar, Sr. CIT(DR)
Section 144Section 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(a)Section 249(4)(b)Section 69

learned CIT(A) to decide the appeal of the assessee, on merit of the impugned addition, in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes.” 5. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) opposed the submission ... decide the appeal of the assessee, on merit of the impugned addition in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The grounds raised in the appeal are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Dr Saif Ud Din Kitchlu Memorial Educational Society, Moga vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ( Exemptions), Chandigarh

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

ITA 567/ASR/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Jan 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahayi.T.A. No.567/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2024-25

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 282A

given any cognizance. He prays that the rejection order has been passed I.T.A. No.567/Asr/2024 5 Assessment Year: 2024-25 without offering a fair opportunity of being heard and as such, he prays for fresh hearing in the matter. 5. The ld. DR relied on the order

Virendra Singh Parihar, Bilaspur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(1), Bilaspur

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

ITA 530/RPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.530/Rpr/2024 यििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Virendra Singh Parihar Yamuna Nagar, Behind Bhatia Residence, Mangla, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan: Bcspp0907Q .......अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: S/shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44A

which, the Ld. AR has concurred. Needless to say, the CIT(Appeals) shall in the course of set-aside proceedings afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee who shall remain at a liberty to substantiate his claim on the basis of fresh documentary evidence

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Vadodara vs. Jay Dushyant Patel, Vadodara

In the result, we find that Ld

ITA 981/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Virat Bhavsar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Virat Bhavsar, A.R
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 90

delay, if any. We, thus, direct the Ld. CIT(A) to pass orders on merit strictly in accordance with law upon giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellant and upon considering the evidence on record or any other evidence which the appellant may choose to file

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Vadodara vs. Jay Dushyant Patel, Vadodara

In the result, we find that Ld

ITA 980/AHD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Virat Bhavsar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Virat Bhavsar, A.R
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 90

delay, if any. We, thus, direct the Ld. CIT(A) to pass orders on merit strictly in accordance with law upon giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellant and upon considering the evidence on record or any other evidence which the appellant may choose to file

Yatinbhai Pramukhbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-3(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 434/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.434/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Yatinbhai Pramukhbhai Patel The Acit बनाम / V/S. Circle-3(3) 2, Parivar Society Part-2 Near Premchand Nagar Row-House, Ahmedabad – 380 015 Ahmedabad – 380 015 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Adrpp 8846 K अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 09/01/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Arises Out Of The Order Dated 09/01/2024 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)"] Confirming The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ao") Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") For The Assessment Year 2017-18.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

submitted that despite submitting the paper book on the e-portal, the CIT(A) did not consider the submissions or provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 6. The Departmental Representative (DR) conceded that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders but contended that the assessee failed

Amit Rajnikant Joshi, Ahmedabad, Gujarat vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad, Gujarat

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

ITA 367/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.367/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 Amit Rajnikant Joshi The Dy.Cit बनाम/ C-29, Aryaman Bungalows Anand Nagar V/S. Opp. Anand Niketan School Prahaladnagar Road Thaltej, Shilaj Road Ahmedabad – 380 05 Ahmedabad – 380 059 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abmpj 6798 F अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prashant Shrivastav, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Shrivastav, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

restore the matter to his file for adjudication de novo. The CIT(A) is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and thereafter pass a reasoned order on merits in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to co-operate in the appellate proceedings

Aavishkar Impex Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1635/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-D.R
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 145Section 37Section 68Section 69Section 69C

assessee “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC. Delhi has erred in passing an Ex Parte order without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Hence the same being against the principles of natural justice and equity requires to be quashed. 2. The learned Commissioner

Niravadya Foundation, Vadodara vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1453/AHD/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jan 2025

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kambleassessment Year : - Niravadya Foundation Vs. The Cit (Exemption) 322, Florence Pride Vejalpur, Ahmedabad. Sunpharma Road Tandalja Road Vadodara 390 012. Pan : Aagcn 9314 D (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Sanket Bakshi, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/12/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 12A(1)(ii)

learned CIT erred in fact and in law in rejecting the application of registration of the trust without giving a proper opportunity of being heard.” 2 3. The ld.counsel for the assessee pointed out that the Ld.CIT rejected the assessee’s application filed ... item (B) of sub-clause (vi) of sub-section (1) of section 12A, rejecting such application, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard;] [(c) where the application is made under item (A) of sub-clause (vi) of the said clause or the application is made under sub-clause

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur vs. Aavishkar Impex Private Limited, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1088/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-D.R
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 145Section 37Section 68Section 69Section 69C

assessee “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC. Delhi has erred in passing an Ex Parte order without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Hence the same being against the principles of natural justice and equity requires to be quashed. 2. The learned Commissioner

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Tapadiya Constructions Ltd, Aurangabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 976/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: MS.ASHTA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 281A

Section274 provides that no order imposing a penalty shall be made unless the assessee has been heard or has beengiven a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In the instant case the penalty notice issued clearly indicatesthat the opportunity of being heard is provided to the assessee and therefore, the penalty

Priyanka Mandadi, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1184/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1184/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ms. Priyanka Mandadi Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 9(1) Pan:Cswpm1029D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri, K.S. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 09/01/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri, K.S. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)

evidences to be filed by the assessee in support of her claim. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard, before passing the fresh order. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open

Salem Starch and Sago Manufacturers Service Industrial Co-Op. Society Ltd., Salem vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Salem

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

ITA 2648/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Kavitha, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 249(2)(c)Section 249(3)Section 51

case, we incline to remit the file to the ld.CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal on merit after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court

Srirampura Prathamika Krishi Pathina Sahakara Sangha Limited, Chitradurga vs. The Income Tax Officer, ITO Ward -1, Chitradurga

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

ITA 1731/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Ramangowda S. Gowda, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for department
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 249(4)Section 250Section 69A

file of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh consideration and to decide the same on merits in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is ordered accordingly. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order