← 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

Mohammad Kasif Raja, Milik Tola, Khoksa, Baisi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Purnea

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

ITA 322/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

appellant. Further, during appellate proceedings, no response received from the appellant to substantiate its claim in support of grounds of appeal though enough opportunities of being heard were given to it, as tabulated in Para 4 above. Hence, keeping in view all the stated facts and discussions ... considered that the request of the assessee to set aside the case before the Ld. AO may be allowed so that a proper opportunity of being heard may be provided. Hence, after examining the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order

Ram Chander, Sitapur vs. The ITO, Sitapur

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

ITA 823/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144Section 253(3)

novo speaking order on merits I.T.A. No.823/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2017-18 3 of the case in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. (E) In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open court on 29/01/2026) . Dated

Rajiv Shukla, Lucknow vs. The ITO-3(3), Lucknow

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

ITA 809/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 69

back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. (D) In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open

Nirav Arvindkumar Patel, HUF, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1576/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 44A

books of account, bank statements and other supporting documents, and thereafter determine the correct taxable income in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 16. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court

Vandanaben Rajbhai Parikh, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

ITA 1135/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 80G

Assessing Officer to pass a fresh assessment order after proper verification and in accordance with law, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 9. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Act. 10. Before

Ravindrabhai Shankarbhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(5) Now ITO, Ward-1(2)(2), Vadodara

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

ITA 1061/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: PendingITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalthe Ito Ravindrabhai Shankarbhai Vs. Ward-1(2)(5). Patel Now Ito, Ward-1(2)(2) 86,Kanha Residency Vadodara – 390 007 Kalali Road, Kalali Ahmedabad – 390 012 [Pan : Aigpp 8415 M] (Appellant) (Respondent) .. Assessee Represented By : Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, Ar Revenue Represented By : Shri Abhijit, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2026

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 54BSection 54F

opportunity to examine the evidences, call for a remand report if necessary, and adjudicate both on facts and in law after granting due opportunity of being heard to the assessee as well as to the Assessing Officer. 10.4. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case ... evidences on record, including the additional documents filed by the assessee before the Tribunal and pass a speaking order after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the Assessing Officer. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The order

Jayesh Purushottam Patel, Pune vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, Pune

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

ITA 2315/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2315/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Jayesh Purushottam Patel, Vs. Ito, National Faceless 39D, J. N. Marg, Gultekadi, Assessment Centre, Pune- 411037. Delhi. Pan : Abapp3184D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Tarak TrivediFor Respondent: Smt Neha Thakur (Virtual)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 80I

facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Learned CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing an opportunity of being heard to the appellant in the interest of principle of natural justice. Hence the order is null and void-ab-initio ... allowed. 10. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Learned CIT(A) erred in passing order without providing opportunity of being heard and raise a demand of Rs.30,80,607/- and same needs to be deleted. 3 11. Your appellant prays leave to add, amend

Arth Foundation, Nashik vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 2258/PUN/2025[2026-27]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2026AY 2026-27

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2258/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2026-27 Arth Foundation, V Commissioner Of Income Flat No.3, Tulip Apartment, S Tax (Exemption), Pune. Suyojit Garden, Gangapur Road, Nashik – 422013. Pan: Aahta2324C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Ca Trishala R Jain (Virtual) Revenue By Shri Amol Khairnar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Passed Under Section 80G Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 01.08.2025. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : ―1. The Learned Cit(E), Pune Has Erred In Rejecting The 1 Application Of The Appellant Trust Filed U/S 80G(5)(Iii) Of The Act Without Considering The Merits Of The Case.

Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)Section 80G(5)(iv)

case referred to in sub-clause (B) of clause (iv) of the first proviso, rejecting such application, after affording it a reasonable opportunity of being heard;] (iii) ……. 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune in the case of the Assessee held that the Activities of the Assessee had commenced

Don Bosco Ahmednagar Society, Satara vs. CIT(Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 1849/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrabosco Gramin Vikas Kendra Cit(Exemption), Pune Nagar Pune Road, Kedgaon, Vs. Ahilyanagar – 414005 Pan: Aaatb3471G (Appellant) (Respondent) Don Bosco Ahmednagar Society Cit(Exemption), Pune At Post Kusumbi, Tal. Jawali, Dist. Vs. Satara, Savedi Kusumbi, Satara – 415012 Pan: Aaatd4049C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prasad Bhandari Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 18-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-01-2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 80GSection 80G(5)

assessee trust. Needless to say the Ld. CIT(E) shall decide the issue afresh and in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of being heard to assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by asse are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 9. After hearing both sides ... restore the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(E) for deciding the issue afresh and in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes

Bosco Gramin Vikas Kendra, Ahilyanagar vs. CIT(Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 1848/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrabosco Gramin Vikas Kendra Cit(Exemption), Pune Nagar Pune Road, Kedgaon, Vs. Ahilyanagar – 414005 Pan: Aaatb3471G (Appellant) (Respondent) Don Bosco Ahmednagar Society Cit(Exemption), Pune At Post Kusumbi, Tal. Jawali, Dist. Vs. Satara, Savedi Kusumbi, Satara – 415012 Pan: Aaatd4049C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prasad Bhandari Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 18-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-01-2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 80GSection 80G(5)

assessee trust. Needless to say the Ld. CIT(E) shall decide the issue afresh and in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of being heard to assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by asse are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 9. After hearing both sides ... restore the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(E) for deciding the issue afresh and in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes

Mihijam Educational Trust, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 30(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2074/KOL/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2026AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

merit by passing a speaking order on the grounds raised before him. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission it wants to make in support of its grounds of appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments and rule ... Rules, 1962 shall also be followed and an opportunity of being heard may be provided to the Ld. AO, if required. ITA No.: 2074/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-24 Mihijam Educational Trust. Accordingly, all the grounds taken by the assessee in this appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

M/S. Starburst Motors Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 14(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1519/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 68

invoking the provision of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without providing adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard before disposal of appeal. Relief claimed: the appellate order should be quashed and the appeal should be restored to Ld. CIT(A) to provide reasonable opportunity of being heard ... deposit and the request of the assessee to set aside the case before the Ld. AO may be allowed so that a proper opportunity of being heard may be provided. Hence, after examining the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order

Jagruti Bharat Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-19(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 8226/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12 Jagruti Bharat Shah Income Tax Officer-19(3)(1), 83 30 Rekha Bldg, Mumbai Vs. Rak Road, Wadala, Mumbai - 400031 [Pan: Aaqps1580D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Mr. Dhaval Shah & Ms. Tisha Bagh, Advocates Revenue : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.01.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Addl/Jcit (A)-2, Lucknow, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025- 26/1081211974(1), Dated 26.09.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income Tax Officer, Ward-19(2)(1), Mumbai, U/S. 147 R.W.S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 26.12.2018 For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Passing The Order U/S. 250 Of The Act Dated 26.09.2025 Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Appellant & Confirming The Order Passed By The Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Act Which Is Bad & Invalid In The Eyes Of Law. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Not Appreciating That The Assessment Order Passed Is In Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice.

For Appellant: Mr. Dhaval Shah and Ms. Tisha Bagh, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69C

novo meritorious adjudication on the grounds raised at the first appellant stage. Needless to say, assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard and to make all the relevant submissions as required to substantiate the claim made by her. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Sanam Jignesh Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7493/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Viraj Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 69

grossly erred in confirming the additions made by the learned assessing officer without adequately appreciating that the Appellant was denied reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, such assessment order is erroneous on facts and bad in law and liable to be annulled/quashed ... restore the entire matter back to the file of the learned assessing officer for fresh adjudication on merits after affording adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Appellant.” 2 Sanam Jignesh Jain 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed her return

Sunanda Medical Institute, Delhi vs. CIT(Exemptions), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7483/MUM/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

Section 80GSection 80G(5)

10AB with all the correct details for fresh consideration of ld. CIT(E). Needless to say, the assessee shall be provided with reasonable opportunity of being heard in the set-aside proceedings. 7. In result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our aforesaid

ACIT Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Sunjewels Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7390/MUM/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Arun Khodpiaacit, Circle 3(2)(1) Sunjewels Private Limited Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, 605/606, 6Th Floor, Multistoried Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Building, Seepz S.O., Andheri (E), Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 096 Pan/Gir No. Aabce 3519 L (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Ravikant Pathak, Ca Respondent By : Shri Swapnil Choudhary-Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.01.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against Order Dated 08.09.2025 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi For The Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2016-17. 2. The Effective Grounds Raised By The Department Are As Under: 1. "Whether, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Was Justified In Setting Aside The Assessment Order Passed U/S.143(3) & Remitting The Matter Back To The Assessing Officer For Fresh Adjudication, Despite The Clear Restriction Contained In The Proviso To Section 251(1)(A) Ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961, Which Permits Such Power Only In Cases Where The Assessment Is Made U/S.144 (Best Judgment Assessment)?" 2. "Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Having No Jurisdiction To Set Aside Or Remand An Assessment Order Passed U/S.143(3), Acted Beyond His Statutory Authority In Law, Thereby Rendering The Impugned Appellate Order Dated 08.09.2025 Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed?" 3. "Whether The Ld.Cit(A), Instead Of Exercising The Powers Vested In Him Under Section 251(1)(A) To Confirm, Reduce, Enhance Or Annual The Assessment, Wrongly Assumed A Power To Restore The Matter To The Assessing Officer, Which Is Ultra Vires The Provisions Of The Income Tax Act, 1961."

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant Pathak, CAFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary-Sr. AR
Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 251(1)(a)Section 69C

aside the assessment order with a direction to the A.O. to examine the issues concerning the additions de novo after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and verifying the additional evidences furnished by the assessee. 9. Drawing our attention to section ... impugned order of learned first appellate authority and restore the issues back to him for fresh adjudication after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. While deciding the issues, the first appellate authority must take due cognizance of the observations made

Aanya Realtors, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 25(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 7353/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: The Learned Cit(A) On Account Of Practical Difficulties. It Was Submitted That The Office Of The Assessee Had Been Taken Over & The Lender Institution, In Relation To The Real Estate Project, Had Been Handed Over To Another Developer, And, Therefore, The Requisite Records Were Not Readily Available. It Was Further Submitted That Before The Learned Cit(A), A Request Was Made Seeking Additional Time Of 21 Days For Filing Written Submissions & Evidences; However, Before The Expiry Of The Said Period, The Learned Cit(A) Proceeded To Pass The Impugned Order.

Section 143(3)Section 43CSection 68

liberty to file all documents, evidences, and written submissions in support of its case. The learned CIT(A) shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and thereafter decide the appeal afresh, in accordance with law, by passing a speaking order. We clarify that all issues

Adv. Chandansinh Solanki Educational Trust, Virar vs. ITO, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee-trust is allowed

ITA 6378/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: The First Appellate Authority Came To Be Dismissed Ex Parte Without Affording A Meaningful Opportunity Of Being Heard; & Secondly, That The Lower Authorities Erred In Upholding The Adjustments Made Under Section 143(1), Namely: (A) Denial Of Deduction Under Section 11(1)(A) In Respect Of Actual Revenue Expenditure Of ₹ 89,77,260 Debited To The Income & Expenditure Account; & (B) Disallowance Of The Claim For Statutory Accumulation Of Income Under Section 11(1)(A) To The Extent Of ₹ 11,65,005, Thereby Treating The Gross Receipts Of ₹ 1,01,42,265 As Taxable Income.

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 2Section 250

principal planks: firstly, that the appeal before the first appellate authority came to be dismissed ex parte without affording a meaningful opportunity of being heard; and secondly, that the lower authorities erred in upholding the adjustments made under section 143(1), namely: (a) denial of deduction under section

Atlantis It Solution Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT, Circle 6(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5021/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2016-17
Section 144Section 147

parte disposal of the appeal by the learned CIT(A), without adjudicating the issues on merits and without affording any effective opportunity of being heard. It has been submitted that the assessee company is managed by a person who is aged 81 years, an octogenarian, who is not conversant with ... restored back to the file of the learned CIT(A) to be decided afresh in accordance with law, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee shall ensure that notices sent through electronic mode, email or the ITBA portal are duly

Anumita Infrastructure Private Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT-4, Mumbai

ITA 2555/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla& Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 151ASection 263

four distinct and independent stages, namely: i. prior to conduct of enquiry by issue of notice under section 148A(a); ii. while providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee under section 148A(b); iii. prior to passing of order under section 148A(d); and iv. prior to issuance