← 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

Yogesh Ginning Mill, Prop. Yogesh Chand Gupta, Govindgarh vs. ACIT, Circle I, Alwar

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 540/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

For Appellant: Shri Paridhi Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gajendra Singh (Addl.CIT) a
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

time barred and the order passed without following the mandatory procedures of the act and by not providing the proper opportunity of being heard. 3) (a) The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the Order of AO in which AO had made addition ... facts in concluding the Appeal and passed the order u/s 250 of the Act on 28.02.2024 without giving the reasonable opportunity of being heard and without taking into consideration the submissions and by violating the principle of natural justice 6) Your appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend

Yogesh Ginning Mill, Prop. Yogesh Chand Gupta, Govindgarh vs. ACIT, Alwar

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1045/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

For Appellant: Shri Paridhi Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gajendra Singh (Addl.CIT) a
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

time barred and the order passed without following the mandatory procedures of the act and by not providing the proper opportunity of being heard. 3) (a) The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the Order of AO in which AO had made addition ... facts in concluding the Appeal and passed the order u/s 250 of the Act on 28.02.2024 without giving the reasonable opportunity of being heard and without taking into consideration the submissions and by violating the principle of natural justice 6) Your appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend

Yogesh Chand Gupta, Alwar vs. ACIT, Alwar

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1044/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In

For Appellant: Shri Paridhi Jain, Adv
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

time barred and the order passed without following the mandatory procedures of the act and by not providing the proper opportunity of being heard. 3) (a) The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the Order of AO in which AO had made addition ... facts in concluding the Appeal and passed the order u/s 250 of the Act on 28.02.2024 without giving the reasonable opportunity of being heard and without taking into consideration the submissions and by violating the principle of natural justice 6) Your appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend

Yadagere Souharada Co-Operative Society Limited, Chikkamagaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chikmagalur

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

ITA 2114/BANG/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Dec 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2022-23

For Appellant: Sri Varun Bhat, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 250(6)

However, at the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the ld. CIT(A) has passed the order without giving any opportunity of being heard. Therefore, in the interest of justice, matter may be restored to the file of CIT(A). Pointing out the reasons of non-appearance

Divya Nur Foudation, Kharghar vs. CIT Exemption, Mumbai

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

ITA 5659/MUM/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2024AY 2024-25

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2024-25 Divya Nur Foundation, Cit (Exemptions), Avon 1201, Riviera Plot No. 37, Mumbai Sector-351, Kharghar Vs. Maharashtra Pan : Aafcd2103D (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Ms. Prajakta For Revenue : Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-12-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-12-2024

For Appellant: Ms. PrajaktaFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 80G

Ld.CIT(E) for examining the application of the assessee by duly considering the amended application filed by the assessee. After affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the Ld.CIT(E) may take appropriate decision in accordance with law. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Jayesh Jashwnat Shah, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 32(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4735/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, Sr. D.R
Section 250

impugned order and to remand the case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. Thus, the case is remanded accordingly. 4. It is clarified that the Assessee shall provide proper address, email and telephone

Mr. Suresh Laxman Padhye, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 26 3 3 Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 4598/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Kalplesh Tularkar, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, Sr. D.R
Section 250

aside and case is remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court

Dharti Developers, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -24(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3895/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Rohan DehhpandeFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 68

also direct the assessee to furnish all the information and explanation that is required to prove the 3 cash credits. After affording adequate opportunity of being heard, the AO may take appropriate decision in accordance with law. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Dilipkumar Phoolchand Jain, Mumbai vs. ACIT-20(1), Mumbai

ITA 2334/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15 Dilipkumar Phoolchand Jain Acit-20(1), Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Dipesh RupareliaFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 274

Erred in not considering the grounds and arguments made by the Appellant while passing the impugned order; 3. Erred in not granting an opportunity of being heard to the Appellant by passing an ex-parte order; 4. Erred in adding INR 69,79,500 (being the difference between the actual

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), New Delhi, Delhi vs. Absolute Projects (India) Ltd, Delhi

In the result, both the Appeal and the Cross Objection filed by the

ITA 89/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Before Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Deputy Commissioner Of Absolute Projects Income Tax, (India) Ltd. Circle-1(1), Room No. 153A, Vs. 4222/1, Laxmi Jung, C. R. Building, I. P. Estate, 1St Floor, Ansari Road, New Delhi Darya Ganj, Delhi Pan No:Aabca0783G (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O No. 54/Del/2024 (A.Y 2017-18 In Ita No. 89/Del/2024) Absolute Projects (India) Deputy Commissioner Ltd. Of Income Tax, 4222/1, Laxmi Jung, 1St Vs. Circle-1(1), Room No. Floor, Ansari Road, Darya 153A, C. R. Building, I. Ganj, Delhi P. Estate, New Delhi Pan No:Aabca0783G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Manu Gawri, Ca & Sh. Rajiv Kr. Gawri, Ca Respondent By Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2024

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 80

Assessee to produce all the documents in support of its claim. The A.O. is directed to pass the assessment order after providing the opportunity of being heard to the Assessee in accordance with law. 8. In the result, both the Appeal and the Cross Objection filed by the Department

Tata Teleservices Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 25(1), Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2548/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Before Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Tata Teleservices Limited Assistant Jeevan Bharati Tower 1, Commissioner Of 10Th Floor, 124, Connaught Vs. Income Tax, Circle Circus, New Delhi 25(1), C. R. Building, Pan No:Aaact2438A Ip Estate, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 201(1)Section 253Section 35A

read with section 143(3) the Act on the following grounds which are independent and without prejudice to one another. Ground No. 1: Opportunity of being heard not granted On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) in its order has erred in disposing ... appeal ex-parte without granting any opportunity of being heard to the Appellant and thereby, violating the principles of natural justice. Ground No. 2: Reference of two separate appeals made in the Order passed by the learned CIT(A) • On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned

K.G.Shoe Exports, Kanpur vs. A/DCIT Circle-1(2)(1), Kanpur

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

ITA 94/LKW/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat, Videshri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 250Section 250(6)

with a direction to adjudicate all the grounds, raised by the assessee before him, on merits in accordance with law after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. (C.1) In view of the foregoing and as representatives of both sides are in agreement on this; we set aside

Abhay Singh, Lucknow vs. D/ACIT-3, Lucknow

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

ITA 321/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Abhay Singh V. Dcit/Acit-3 10-A, Literacy House Lucknow Kanpur Road Lucknow Tan/Pan:Ankps4767R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 12 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

making total addition of Rs.31,30,000/- u/s 69A of the Act, without considering the peculiar facts of the case and providing proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant. The addition of Rs.31,30,000 is therefore liable to be deleted. 5. None was present for the assessee when

Mohammad Sajid, Barabanki vs. ITO-5(4), Barabanki

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

ITA 319/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Mohammad Sajid V. Income Tax Officer 5(4) Gram & Post Jahangirabad Barabanki Varabanki (U.P) Tan/Pan:Flyps5250Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shailendra Mishra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 12 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Shailendra Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

interest of justice, the matter may be restored to the file of the AO for deciding the same afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He submitted that the assessee undertakes to produce all the relevant documents in support of his claim before

Hari Krushna Machintech Private Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1616/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)

Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in passing an Ex Parte Order dismissing the appeal 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. ITA Nos.1553, 1554 & 1616/Ahd/2024 ... Assessing Officer in reopening the assessment and passing an order u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant hence the same being against the principles of natural justice and law requires to be quashed. 5. The Learned Commissioner

Hari Krushna Machintech Private Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1554/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)

Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in passing an Ex Parte Order dismissing the appeal 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. ITA Nos.1553, 1554 & 1616/Ahd/2024 ... Assessing Officer in reopening the assessment and passing an order u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant hence the same being against the principles of natural justice and law requires to be quashed. 5. The Learned Commissioner

Hari Krushna Machintech Private Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1553/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)

Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in passing an Ex Parte Order dismissing the appeal 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. ITA Nos.1553, 1554 & 1616/Ahd/2024 ... Assessing Officer in reopening the assessment and passing an order u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant hence the same being against the principles of natural justice and law requires to be quashed. 5. The Learned Commissioner

Aahvan Agencies Limited (Now Merged With Aagam Agencies P. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1530/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumarshri Tr Senthil Kumaraahvan Agencies Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of (Now Merged With Aagam Income-Tax, Agencies (P.) Limited), Circle-1(1)(1), 1St Floor, Akshay, 53, Shrimali Ahmedabad Society, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 [Pan : Aacca 3738 Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar Respondent By: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11.12.2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

should not be made under section 271 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. If you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity of being heard in person or through authorized representative you may show cause in writing on or before the said date which will be considered before

Rajeshbhai Mohanbhai Prajapati, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the levy of costs

ITA 1098/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1097/Ahd/2024 & 1098/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Rajeshbhai Mohanbhai Prajapati The Ito बनाम/ D-Ff 108 Pushp Business Ward-3(3)(5) V/S. Campus Ahmedabad Vastral Cross Roads Sp Ring Road, Vastral Ahmedabad – 382 445 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Atspp 0059 P अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jignesh Shah, Adv. Revenue By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Jignesh Shah, AdvFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

believe that the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present its case. The principles of natural justice mandate that an adequate opportunity of being heard must be granted to both parties. Restoring the matter to the AO for ITA Nos.1097 & 1098/Ahd/2024 Rajeshbhai Mohanbhai Prajapati vs. ITO Asst. Years ... restored to the file of the AO for a de novo assessment. The AO is directed to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to consider all submissions and evidence filed during the fresh proceedings. The assessee is directed to cooperate fully with the AO and comply

Rajeshbhai Mohanbhai Prajapati, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the levy of costs

ITA 1097/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1097/Ahd/2024 & 1098/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Rajeshbhai Mohanbhai Prajapati The Ito बनाम/ D-Ff 108 Pushp Business Ward-3(3)(5) V/S. Campus Ahmedabad Vastral Cross Roads Sp Ring Road, Vastral Ahmedabad – 382 445 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Atspp 0059 P अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jignesh Shah, Adv. Revenue By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Jignesh Shah, AdvFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

believe that the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present its case. The principles of natural justice mandate that an adequate opportunity of being heard must be granted to both parties. Restoring the matter to the AO for ITA Nos.1097 & 1098/Ahd/2024 Rajeshbhai Mohanbhai Prajapati vs. ITO Asst. Years ... restored to the file of the AO for a de novo assessment. The AO is directed to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to consider all submissions and evidence filed during the fresh proceedings. The assessee is directed to cooperate fully with the AO and comply