← 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

Children Reunited Foundation, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 4912/MUM/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, A/RFor Respondent: Mr. R.A. Dhyani, CIT, D/R
Section 12ASection 80G

deleted the objectionable clause from its trust deed and if found deleted then decide the issue afresh, after affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court

Children Reunited Foundation, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 4911/MUM/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, A/RFor Respondent: Mr. R.A. Dhyani, CIT, D/R
Section 12ASection 80G

deleted the objectionable clause from its trust deed and if found deleted then decide the issue afresh, after affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court

Confederation of Bahadurgarh Industries, Jhajjar, Haryana vs. CIT Exemptions, Chandigarh

In the result, the Applicant’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1578/DEL/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumara.Yr. : N/A Confederation Of Vs. Cit Exemptions, Bahadurgarh Industries, Chandigarh Jhajjar Haryana, C.R. Building, Plot No. Gr-18B/2, Ganpati Himalaya Marg, Dham, Industrial Area, Sector-17, Chandigarh Bahadurgarh, Jhajjar, Haryana -124507 (Pan: Aafac3698A) (Applicant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT(DR)
Section 12ASection 2(15)

remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(Exemptions) with the directions to decide the issues in dispute afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the applicant. We hold and direct accordingly. 7. In the result, the Applicant’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

Alok Dave, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-44(1), Delhi

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

ITA 1302/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Paritosh Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 274Section 69A

heard the rival submissions, we are of the considered view that both the lower authorities ought to have given a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it fit to restore the appeal to the file ... Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to decide the appeal afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to produce necessary documents to justify its claim as and when called to do so. 13. In the result

Trinity Touch Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-25(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1309/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

evidence as called for by the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide the issue afresh after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 14. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 1309/DEL/2023 is allowed for statistical purposes. The order

Ambai De vs. Than Trust, Punevs.Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 1807/PUN/2024[--]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1807/Pun/2024 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: Na Ambai Devsthan Trust Cit Exemption, Pune At Post Dhayari Tal Haveli, Vs Pune-411041 Maharashtra Pan No. Aaaaa4094K Appellant/Assessee Respondent/Revenue

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

duly served through e-mail portal/e-mail. However, the assessee neither submitted any explanation to the said show cause notice nor availed the opportunity of being heard granted by the Ld. CIT(E) 2 which lead the Ld. CIT(E) presume that the assessee has nothing to say in the matter ... application for registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act in accordance with facts and law after allowing one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee and present its case. The assessee shall provide requisite support in terms of submitting the relevant details/documentary evidence

The Nagar Vachanalaya Vita, Sangli vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 1806/PUN/2024[--]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1806/Pun/2024 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: Na The Nagar Vachanalaya Cit Exemption, Pune Vita, Vs Choundeshwari Chowk Vita Lengare Road, Khanapur, Sangli - 415311 Maharashtra Pan No. Aactt7103R Appellant/Assessee Respondent/Revenue

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

duly served through e-mail portal/e- mail. The assessee however, neither submitted any explanation to the said show cause notice nor availed the opportunity of being heard which lead the Ld. CIT(E) to presume that the assessee has nothing to say in the matter. 4. In view ... application for registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act in accordance with facts and law after allowing one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee and present its case. The assessee shall provide requisite support in terms of submitting the relevant details/documentary evidence

Shree Bhairavnath De vs. Than Trust, Punevs.Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 1805/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1805/Pun/2024 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: Na Shree Bhairavnath Devsthan Cit Exemption, Pune Trust, Sinhgad Road, Vs Dhayari Tal Haveli, Pune – 411041 Maharashtra Pan No. Aaits4575J Appellant/Assessee Respondent/Revenue

Section 124(1)(a)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

assessee’s application for registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act in accordance with facts and law after allowing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and present its case. The assessee shall provide requisite support in terms of submitting the relevant details/documentary evidence

Rakesh Satija, Ramgarh, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Alwar

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

ITA 1160/JPR/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Dec 2024AY 2022-23
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary Addl.CIT

assessment order. The AO mentioned in his assessment order that during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee was given several opportunities of being heard to 4 ITA NO, 1160/JPR/2024 SHRI RAKESH SATIJA VS ITO, ALWAR the assessee which was not responded fully. Hence, in view of the non- compliance ... view that lis between the parties has to be decided on merits so that nobody's rights could be scuttled down without providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, the matter is restored to the file of the AO to decide it afresh by providing one more opportunity

Sarvesh Khemka, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ncrb Building

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

ITA 1026/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tatiwala, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54

view that lis between the parties has to be decided on merits so that nobody’s rights could be scuttled down without providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, the matter is restored to the file of the AO to decide it afresh by providing one more opportunity

Satish Rajaji Rathod, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5404/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sucheck AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80CSection 80D

case and in law, the Ld. NFAC erred in confirming the order of the Learned Assessing Officer (*Ld. A.O."), without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. NFAC erred in not considering that the assumption

Aaji Care Sevak Foundation, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai

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

ITA 5343/MUM/2024[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2024AY 2024-2025

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year :2024-25

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar RuthalaFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash, CIT-DR
Section 12A

examining the application of the assessee afresh duly considering the various details that may be furnished by the assessee. After affording 3 adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the Ld.CIT(E) may take appropriate decision in accordance with law. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Lords Freight (India) Private Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 5239/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2022-23 Lords Freight (India) Private Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, Arena Space, Vs. Circle-2(2)(1), 10Th& 11Th Floor, 545, 5Th Floor, Plot No. 20, Jvlr, Aayakar Bhavan, Nr. Majas Bus Depot, M.K. Road, Jogeshwari (East), Mumbai. Mumbai. Pan : Aaccl0108M (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Devendra Jain For Revenue : Shri Akshay Tapdiya, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 21-11-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-12-2024 O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran, A.M : The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dated 07-08-2024 Passed By The Ld. Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Vadodara & It Relates To The Assessment Year (Ay.)2022-23. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Decision Of The Ld.Cit(A) In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee In Limine, Without Condoning The Delay Of Around Thirty Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Ld.Cit(A). 2. The Ld.Ar Submitted Thatthe Return Of Income Filed By The Assessee Was Initially Processed U/S. 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟) On 26-07-2023 Making Various Adjustments To The Returned Income. Hence, The Assessee Filed Appeal Against The Above Said Intimation Before Ld Cit(A) & The Same Is Pending Before Him.

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Akshay Tapdiya, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

appeal on merits, we deem it proper to restore all the issues to his file for adjudicating them on merits, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed. Order pronounced in the open court

Sainath Sakharam Tare, Thane vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Thane

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3682/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayita No. 3682/M/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sainath Sakharam Tara Survey No. 84-10/11, Kalyan Padgha Road, Cape Village, Bhiwandi, Dist. Thane - 421302. Pan: Aerpt8712M (Appellant) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Thane Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, Road No. 16Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane - 400604. (Respondent) Present For : Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Gaurav Kabra Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit D.R.& Smt. Sujatha P. Iyengar - Sr. Ar. Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement Order : 05.09.2024 : 02.12.2024 Per : Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Appellant Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act [The 'Act' In Short] Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1065032024(1) Dated 21/05/2024 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. Page | 2

For Appellant: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in lawFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Kabra Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D.R.& Smt. Sujatha P. Iyengar - Sr.
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 269Section 271

case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in passing the ex-parte order without granting sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming ... this appeal has been preferred before us. During the appellate proceedings before us, the appellant submitted that reasonable opportunity of being heard was not given to the appellant and the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the appeal ex-parte. 7. We have considered the facts and circumstances of the case

Sainath Sakharam Tare, Thane vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Thane

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3681/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2014-15 Sainath Sakharam Tara Assistant Commissioner Survey No. 84-10/11, Of Income Tax, Central Kalyan Padgha Road, Circle – 2, Thane Sape Village, Bhiwandi, Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, Dist. Thane – 421302. Vs. Road No. 16Z, Wagle Pan: Aerpt8712M Industrial Estate, Thane – 400604. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D.R.& Smt. Sujatha
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 269Section 271

case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in passing the ex-parte order without granting sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming ... this appeal has been preferred before us. During the appellate proceedings before us, the appellant submitted that reasonable opportunity of being heard was not given to the appellant to explain its case and the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the appeal ex-parte. 8. We have considered the facts

Sainath Sakharam Tare, Thane vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range, Thane

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3680/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2018-19 Sainath Sakharam Tara Assistant Commissioner Survey No. 84-10/11, Of Income Tax, Central Kalyan Padgha Road, Range, Thane Sape Village, Bhiwandi, Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, Dist. Thane – 421302. Vs. Road No. 16Z, Wagle Pan: Aerpt8712M Industrial Estate, Thane – 400604. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav KabraFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D.R.& Smt. Sujatha
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 269Section 271Section 271D

circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in passing the ex-parte order, without granting opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 2On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred ... this appeal has been preferred before us. During the appellate proceedings before us, the appellant submitted that reasonable opportunity of being heard was not given to the appellant and the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the appeal ex-parte. 7. We have considered the facts and circumstances of the case

Sainath Sakharam Tare, Thane vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range, Thane

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3678/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2019-20 Sainath Sakharam Tare Assistant Commissioner Survey No. 84-10/11, Of Income Tax, Central Kalyan Padgha Road, Circle – 2, Thane Sape Village, Bhiwandi, Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, Dist. Thane – 421302. Vs. Road No. 16Z, Wagle Pan: Aerpt8712M Industrial Estate, Thane – 400604. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav KabraFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D.R.& Smt. Sujatha
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 269Section 269SSection 271Section 271D

circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in passing the ex-parte order, without granting opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred ... this appeal has been preferred before us. During the appellate proceedings before us, the appellant submitted that reasonable opportunity of being heard was not given to the appellant and the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the appeal ex-parte. 7. We have considered the facts and circumstances of the case

Rajiv Kumar, Shahjahanpur vs. ITO-1(5) Shahjahanpur-2, Shahjahanpur

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

ITA 336/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshrarajiv Kumar V. Ito-1(5) 17 Rajeev Traders, Tiraha Aaykar Bhawan, Nh-24, Bajar, Powayan, Shahjahanpur- Bareilly Mod, 242401. Shahjahanpur. Pan: Aivpg8841Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl
Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)Section 253(3)Section 69A

natural justice. 2 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in passing the order without giving adequate opportunity of being heard. 3 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in confirming addition

Dhaval Sureshkumar Rana, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(4), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 805/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

Income Tax (Appeals), 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. Dhaval Sureshkumar Rana ... National Relief Fund". The ld. DR declined in principle. We find that no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue if an opportunity of being heard is given to the assessee. Hence, in the interest of justice, we remand the matter to the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue

Prashant Chandulal Parikh, HUF, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-5(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 369/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 369/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) बनाम/ Prashant Chandulal Assistant Commissioner Of Parikh, Huf Income Tax Vs. C/O M/S. Chandulal J Circle 5(2)(1), Ahmedabad Parikh, 303 Ushadep Complex, Nr. Navrangpura, Railway Crossing, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad 380009 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadhp9467M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Rajendera K Shah, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/11/2024 /11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Rajendera K Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 54F

aside and impugned addition by AO may please be ordered to be deleted. 5. The learned CIT(A) NFAC has erred in denying opportunity of being heard through videoconferencing, therefore, the order is issued without following prescribed by CBDT, therefore, may please be set aside.” 5. The first ground taken