“opportunity of being heard”

Arya Sindhu Sanskrit Gurukul Sansthan, Mumbai vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 7700/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2025-26) & 2. Ita No. 7701/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2025-26) Arya Sindhu Sanskrit Cit (Exemption), Gurukul Sansthan 601, 6Th Floor, 141/253 Mulund Vs. Cumballa Hill, Mtnl Colony, Saraswati Te Building, Pedder Chowk, Mumbai-400 Road, Dr. Ganpatrao 082 Deshmukh Marg, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400 026 Pan/Gir No. Aaata2526R (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Gyaneshwar Kataram, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026

restore both the matters to the file of the CIT(E)for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 12. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court

Blossom Charitable Trust, Thane vs. CIT (Exemptions), Pune

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

restored to his 6 ITA No. 7545/Mum/2025 Blossom Charitable Trust file for fresh adjudication on merits in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 16. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court

Tara Hospitality Pvt Ltd, Office No A vs. Income Tax Officer 15(3)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokartara Hospitality Private Vs Income Tax Officer 15(3)(1), Limited Mumbai Office No.A-112 Plot No.53, Room No.456 Aayakar Bhawan, Sector-15Cbd Belapur Navi M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400614 Pan:Aaect7774K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Satyaprakash Singh, Ca Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Misra (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/01/2026 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 2018-19, Date Of Order 19.09.2025. The Impugned Order Emanated From The Order Of The National Eassessment Centre, Delhi (For Brevity The “Ld. Ao”), Order Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Date Of Order 23.04.2021. 2 Tara Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. 2. We Heard The Rival Submission & Considered The Documents Available In The Record. The Assessee Company Filed The Return By Admitting Loss Amount Of Rs.6,85,303/-. The Assessment Proceeding Was Initiated. During The Assessment Ld. Ao Found In Column No.31(A) Of The Audit Report For Form No.3Cd That Assessee Has Taken Loan From Three Different Parties Amount Of Rs.1,45,75,891/-. But Finally The Assessment Order Was Passed Ex Parte & The Unsecured Loan Amount Of Rs.1,45,75,891/- Was Added Back As Unexplained Cash Credit U/Sec. 68 Of The Act. Aggrieved Assessee Filed An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A). The Ld. Cit(A) Passed An Order Ex Parte & Uphold The Impugned Assessment Order. Being Aggrieved Assessee Filed An Appeal Before Us.

considered view, it is evident that the appellate & assessment orders were passed ex parte and that the assessee was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The denial of such opportunity amounts to a violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, we consider it appropriate to restore ... matter to the file of the Ld. AO for adjudication de novo, after granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee shall also be permitted to file any additional evidence relevant to the appeal proceedings. We make no observation on the merits of the 3 Tara Hospitality

Kovalam Resort Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 6580/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) 2. Ita No. 6578/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. Ita No. 6579/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Kovalam Resort Private Dcit 2(1)(1), Limited 561, Aayakar The Leela, Sahar, Andheri Vs. Bhavan, M. K. East, Mumbai-400 059 Road, Mumbai- 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaeck4804H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Dharan Gandi & Shri Ravi Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Ritesh Misra, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026

verify and adjudicate the claims of the assessee relating to depreciation on landscaping and internal roads in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 55. The additional grounds raised by the assessee on the issue of goodwill are admitted and allowed in the above

Kovalam Resort Private Limtied, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 6580/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) 2. Ita No. 6578/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. Ita No. 6579/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Kovalam Resort Private Dcit 2(1)(1), Limited 561, Aayakar The Leela, Sahar, Andheri Vs. Bhavan, M. K. East, Mumbai-400 059 Road, Mumbai- 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaeck4804H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Dharan Gandi & Shri Ravi Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Ritesh Misra, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026

verify and adjudicate the claims of the assessee relating to depreciation on landscaping and internal roads in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 55. The additional grounds raised by the assessee on the issue of goodwill are admitted and allowed in the above

Kovalam Resort Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

verify and adjudicate the claims of the assessee relating to depreciation on landscaping and internal roads in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 55. The additional grounds raised by the assessee on the issue of goodwill are admitted and allowed in the above

Kundan Jayantilal Bhatt, Mumbai vs. ITO, Circle 4, Thane

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarkundan Jayantilal Bhatt Ito Cirlce-4, 277, Kundan Bunglow Room No. 2, Ashar Behind Yashwant Heights, Vs. It Park, 6Th Floor, Opp. Vidyavihar School, Road No. 16Z, Virar (West), Shivansai, Wagle Industrial Thane, Maharashtra – Estate, Thane, 401 303 Maharashtra- 400604 Pan/Gir No. Adjpb4878K (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ravi Gupta, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026

afresh in accordance with law after considering the valuation report of the District Valuation 8 Kundan Jayantilal Bhatt Officer and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 19. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court

Hariprasad Vedasubramanian, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MAKARAND VASANT

Devanand Amarnath Parkar, Jogeshwari East, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 41(4)(1), Kautilya Bhawan, Bkc, Bandra East

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K(SMC)” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

Bhushan Vasant Parelkar, Mumbai vs. Ward 41(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Bhushan Vasant Parelkar Income Tax Officer, A-204 Saikripa, Navghar Ward 41(2)(1), Road, Mulund East S.O, Vs Mumbai Mumbai - 400081 (Pan: Akdpp6556D) Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Shri Dharan Gandhi, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1079866363(1), Dated 22.08.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Ito, Ward-41(2)(1),, U/S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 31.05.2023 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Ao Of Reopening The Assessment U/S 147 Although The Reopening Is Time Barred & Hence Bad In Law. Bhushan Vasant Parelkar Ay 2013-14

amendments is introduction of section 148A. Pursuant to section 148A, it is mandatory for the Assessing Officer to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee by serving a notice of show cause as to why the notice u/s. 148 should not be issued. Further, Assessing Officer is required ... specified authority, with respect to information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. ii. He shall provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee with the prior approval of the specified authority. iii. He shall consider the reply of the assessee furnished, if any in response

More Mauli Co-Op Credit Society Limited Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Ward 22(2)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Income-tax Act, 1961 is bad in law and liable to be quashed, as the appellant was not afforded a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard before completion of the assessment. In the present case, due to circumstances beyond the control of the appellant, such opportunity could

More Mauli Co-Op Credit Society Limited Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Ward 22(2)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Income-tax Act, 1961 is bad in law and liable to be quashed, as the appellant was not afforded a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard before completion of the assessment. In the present case, due to circumstances beyond the control of the appellant, such opportunity could

More Mauli Co-Op Credit Society Limited Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Ward 22(2)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Income-tax Act, 1961 is bad in law and liable to be quashed, as the appellant was not afforded a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard before completion of the assessment. In the present case, due to circumstances beyond the control of the appellant, such opportunity could

Dhaval Dinesh Shah, Vasai, Thane vs. Ward 42(1)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.4 raised by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

restore this issue back to the file of Assessing Officer with the directions to adjudicate the issue afresh after granting Assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Assessee is directed to place before the Assessing Officer documents in support of expenditure debited to the Income & Expenditure Statement and/or material

Nayan Rajendra Kshatriya, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed on above terms

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

purchase of securities. 2. Cognizance was not given to the Documents and evidences submitted alongwith the written submissions. An Opportunity of being heard was also not given after submission of all required documents along with written submission and evidences. Your Appellant therefore submits that the relief sought in the aforesaid

Nayan Rajendra Kshatriya, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed on above terms

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

purchase of securities. 2. Cognizance was not given to the Documents and evidences submitted alongwith the written submissions. An Opportunity of being heard was also not given after submission of all required documents along with written submission and evidences. Your Appellant therefore submits that the relief sought in the aforesaid

Birla Shlok Edutech Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-4, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MAKARAND VASANT

Birla Shlok Edutech Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-4, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee being ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

that the matter deserves to be restored to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication, after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. At the same time, the assessee is directed to extend full cooperation and to remain diligent so as to facilitate the expeditious disposal

Birla Shlok Edutech Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-4, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee being ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

that the matter deserves to be restored to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication, after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. At the same time, the assessee is directed to extend full cooperation and to remain diligent so as to facilitate the expeditious disposal

Birla Shloka Edutech Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT-4, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MAKARAND VASANT