← 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

Fixed Income Money Market and Derivatives Association of India, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemp.)-(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 20/MUM/2024[AY 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: 10/09/2024
Section 11

Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in passing tax (Appeals) has erred in passing the impugned Order without giving an opportunity of being heard impugned Order without giving an opportunity of being heard impugned Order without giving an opportunity of being heard which is against the principles of natural ... provided adequate submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not provided adequate submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not provided adequate opportunity of being heard which is against the principle of natural opportunity of being heard which is against the principle of natural opportunity of being heard which

Aditya Birla Sunlife Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) 54, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1828/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2021-22 Aditya Birla Sunlife Insurance Commissioner Of Income Tax Company Ltd., (A) – 54, 16Th Floor, Tower 1, One World Mumbai Vs. Centre, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai – 400013 (Pan : Aabcb4623J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2021-22 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Aditya Birla Sunlife Tax – Central Circle – 5(3), Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai 16Th Floor, Tower 1, One Vs. World Centre, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai – 400013 (Pan : Aabcb4623J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Ronak Doshi, Ca Revenue : Shri Ajay Chandra, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT DR
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 234BSection 37(1)Section 44Section 69C

consider the claim of the assessee subject to the said verification and provisions of law. Needless to say that assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, ground no.3 is allowed for statistical purposes. 17. Ground No.4 is in respect of addition for expenses claimed by the assessee treated ... consider the claim of the assessee in accordance with the provisions of the law. Needless to say, that assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, ground no.4 is allowed for statistical purposes. 20. Ground no.5 relates to levy of interest u/s. 234A and 234B of Act which

Fixed Income Money Market and Derivatives Association of India, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemp.)-(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 128/MUM/2024[AY 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: 10/09/2024
Section 11

Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in passing tax (Appeals) has erred in passing the impugned Order without giving an opportunity of being heard impugned Order without giving an opportunity of being heard impugned Order without giving an opportunity of being heard which is against the principles of natural ... provided adequate submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not provided adequate submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not provided adequate opportunity of being heard which is against the principle of natural opportunity of being heard which is against the principle of natural opportunity of being heard which

Anvis Digital Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Ward 6(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1092/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 50C(2)Section 56(2)(x)

subject property. After the said valuation is made, assessment be made denovo in accordance with the provisions of law for which reasonable opportunity of being heard be given to assessee. Accordingly, ground no.3 raised by the assessee in this respect is allowed. Since the matter is remitted back

Avance Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 2(1), Mumbai, Marine Lines

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

ITA 2499/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

entries and thereby re-compute the assessed income in accordance with the provisions of law. Needless to say that assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard to establish its claim. Accordingly, grounds taken by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee

Saxon Fluid Sealing Devices, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-45(7), Delhi

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

ITA 993/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2017-18 M/S Saxon Fluid Sealing Devices, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Shop No. 102, Bhera Enclave, Ward 45(7), Gupta Plaza, New Delhi Paschim Vihar, Delhi – 110 063 (Pan: Aamfs9731J) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mukul Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Shashi Kajle, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 271ASection 68

passed the order without independent application of mind. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the order without providing an opportunity of being heard. 7. That the AO erred in initiating penalty u/s. 271AAC of the Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee ... dispute are remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the directions to consider the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. 8. In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

Yogender Mohan Rustagi, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle 28, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 461/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Yogender Mohan Rustagi Vs Acit Central Circle -28 548/549 Katra Ishwar Bhawan Delhi Khari Baoli Delhi-110006 Pan No. Agupr9629J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271A

should not be made under section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. If you do not wish to aval 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 ... order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be made unless the assessee has been heard, or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (2) No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be made- (a) by the Income tax Officer, where the penalty exceeds ten thousand

Faryad Ali, Ghaziabad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1076/DEL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareeka.Yr. : 2012-13 Faryad Ali, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C/O Sanjeev Anand & Ward 1(2), Associates, Cgo Complex, 136, Navyug Market, Hapur Chungi, Ghaziabad, Up-201001 Ghaziabad - 201002 (Pan: Amapa2890A) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 144

back to the file of the AO with the directions to consider the same afresh and pass a speaking order, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. 7. In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

Sunil Kumar Kukreja, Hisar vs. ITO Ward-4, Hisar

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

ITA 1001/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2017-18 Sunil Kumar Kukreja, Vs. Income Tax Officer, House No. 10A, Rajiv Nagar, Ward-4, Hisar Hisar Haryana – 125001 Haryana (Pan:Bcopk6853N) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Shashi Kajle, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 68

issues in dispute are remitted back to the file of the AO with the directions to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. 8. In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

Prayas Tracon Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Faridabad

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3627/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareeka.Yr. : 2008-09 Prayas Tracon Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii, (Now Known As With M/S Srs Faridabad Banquets & Resorts Ltd., D-28, South Extension, Part-I New Delhi – 110 049 (Pan: Aaccp8383L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Surender pal, CIT(DR)
Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 154

erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the AO in passing the impugned order without giving adequate opportunity of being heard and by not observing the principles of natural justice and by recording incorrect facts. 2. The brief facts of the case are that assessment

M/S Benara Bearing Pvt.Ltd, Agra vs. DCIT-CC-1, Kanpur

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

ITA 333/LKW/2024[B.P.1996-97 to 2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Oct 2024

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. : B.P. 1996-97 To 2002-03 M/S Benara Bearings Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income- 44/347, Bharatpur Road, Vs. Tax, Central Circle-1, Kanpur Bodla, Agra-282007 U.P. Pan:Aabcb5525F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashish Jaiswal, Advcoate Revenue By: Sh. Gayasuddin, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 21.09.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Jaiswal, AdvcoateFor Respondent: Sh. Gayasuddin, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 158BSection 245CSection 250Section 263

NFAC with a direction to condone the delay and decide the issues raised before him on their merits after giving the assessee due opportunity of being heard. Ground Nos. 1 to 4 of the assessee’s appeal are accordingly allowed. As the matter has been restored to the file

Harsahaimal Shiamlal Jewellers Pvivate Limited, Bareilly vs. PCIT(Central), Bareilly

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

ITA 65/LKW/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Oct 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Harsahaimal Shiamlal Jewellers Shri Vimalendu Verma, Private Limited, 148, Civil Lines, Vs. Pcit (Central), Lucknow, U.P. Bareilly, U.P.-243001 Pan:Aacch3785L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. S.H. Usmani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Order Under Section 263 Of The Act, Passed By The Ld. Pcit, Central ,Lucknow On 17.02.2022, Setting Aside The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer, Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act On 29.07.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred, Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.H. Usmani, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

aside to the ld. AO, for passing a fresh order, after considering the issues highlighted by him and after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard. 4. The assessee is aggrieved at this order under section 263 and has accordingly filed this appeal. Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate (hereinafter referred ... observance of the principles of natural justice which is implicit in the requirement cast by the Section to give the assessee an opportunity of being heard. It is in the context of the above position that this Court has repeatedly held that unlike the power of reopening an assessment under

Etah Wine Traders, Kasganj vs. PCIT, Bareiily

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 117/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaetah Wine Traders V. Pcit, Bareilly C/O Kunwar Devendra Singh Aaykar Bhawan, Central Yadav, Laxmiganj, Kasganj, Revenue Building, Kamla Uttar Pradesh-207123. Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, Bareilly. Pan:Aaaae1483E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vivek Agrawal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Manu Chaurasia, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18 10 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25 10 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Agrawal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manu Chaurasia, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263

Assessing Officer is erroneous insofar 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 of the case

Dinesh Ramanbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1506/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1506/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Dinesh Ramanbhai Patel The Ito बनाम/ 23, Shyam Sharan Part-2 Ward-3(2)(1) V/S. Aarohi Club Road Ahmedabad Bopal-Ghuma Ahmedabad – 380 058 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Btbpp 3659 P अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) ….. Assessee By : Shri Shri Kushal Fofaria, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Shri Kushal Fofaria, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250(6)Section 272ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 272A(3)(aa)Section 69

filing the appeal. The CIT(A) is directed to issue notices to the assessee at the correct email address and provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard before passing a fresh order. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

Aadi Real Estate Developers Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 928/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Aadi Real Estate Developers Vs. Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Ward 1(1)(1), 402, Sheel Complex, Mayur Ahmedabad Colony, Mithakhali, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan : Aajca 1796 R अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.10.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 25.05.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. 2. The Brief Facts Relating To The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company & Had Filed ‘Nil’ Return Of Income For The Impugned Assessment Year, I.E. Ay 2012-13. Subsequently, On Information Received From Ddit (Inv.), Unit-1 (3), Ahmedabad, By The Assessing Officer That The Assessee Was A Beneficiary Of Accommodation Entry Taken Through Dummy Companies Run & Controlled By One Jignesh Shah, Which Information Was Revealed Consequent To Search Action Conducted On Jignesh Shah, The Case Of The Aadi Real Estate Developers Pvt Ltd Vs. Ito Ay : 2012-13 2

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 250Section 68

appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 17. Having held so, we find that the assessee has not been given sufficient opportunity of being heard even by the ld. CIT(A). Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted documents which apparently prove the genuineness

Vadodara Enviro Channel Ltd., (Formerly Known As Effluent Channel Project Ltd.), Vadodara vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(2), Vadodara

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

ITA 2094/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Page No 3 Vadodara Enviro Channel Ltd. vs. ACIT 2015 (which is subject matter of ITA No. 2387/Ahd/2015). Subsequently, the AO provided another opportunity of being heard to the assessee and then levied a penalty of Rs.1,03,59,360/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act against which assessee filed ... proceedings for the imposition of penalty shall be passed— (a) unless the assessee has been heard, or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard; (b) after the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which the order of 34a[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals

Vadodara Enviro Channel Ltd. (Formerly Known As Effluent Channel Project Ltd.), Baroda vs. The ACIT., Circle-1(2), Baroda

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

ITA 2387/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Page No 3 Vadodara Enviro Channel Ltd. vs. ACIT 2015 (which is subject matter of ITA No. 2387/Ahd/2015). Subsequently, the AO provided another opportunity of being heard to the assessee and then levied a penalty of Rs.1,03,59,360/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act against which assessee filed ... proceedings for the imposition of penalty shall be passed— (a) unless the assessee has been heard, or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard; (b) after the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which the order of 34a[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals

Nihilent Limited, Pune vs. PCIT-2, Pune

ITA 929/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Prakash
Section 139Section 263Section 90

made in this order. The assessment is to be completed within the stipulated time- frame after conducting the necessary enquiries and giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Further, wherever applicable, the Assessing Officer is also directed the initiate penalty proceedings as per the provisions of the Income

Nihilent Limited, Pune vs. PCIT, Pune

ITA 928/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Prakash
Section 139Section 263Section 90

made in this order. The assessment is to be completed within the stipulated time- frame after conducting the necessary enquiries and giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Further, wherever applicable, the Assessing Officer is also directed the initiate penalty proceedings as per the provisions of the Income

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7, Pune vs. Mubea Automotive Components India Private Limited, Pune

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

ITA 694/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(2)

file of 5 the CIT(A) / NFAC for his fresh adjudication. Needless to say the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC shall give due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue as per fact and law by passing a speaking order. The grounds raised by the Revenue