← 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

Grameen First Development Foundation, Mumbai vs. Exemption Ward, Thane

ITA 1607/MUM/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: us submitted that the delay in

For Appellant: Shri Paras MunotFor Respondent: Shri Pushkraj Bhange Patil
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

fact in Assessment Year 2023-24 rejecting the application filed u/s. section 12A(ac)(iii) of the Act without providing an opportunity of being heard in the matter dues to technical error. 3. Thus the grievance of the Appellant is that the learned CIT(E) did not provide opportunity ... 29/06/2023 passed by the CIT(E) is set aside with the directions to decide the application afresh after granting the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Appellant is directed to take steps to activate the email ID or update the Email ID registered with the ITBA Portal

Hitesh Maheshwari, Thakurdwari vs. ITO 19(1)(5) Mumbai, Tardeo

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

ITA 919/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Jay BhansaliFor Respondent: Shri Dharamveer D. Yadav
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

accordingly deem it proper to restore the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court

Shree Saibaba Exim Private Limited, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(3), Vadodara

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

ITA 1312/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Darshan Belani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 68

However, having gone through the records, we are of the opinion that no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue if an opportunity of being heard is given to the assessee by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) shall pass the order de-novo after giving due opportunity

Kalpeshbhai Amthabhai Desai, Mehsana vs. ITO (Ward 1), Mehsana

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

ITA 1271/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1271/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 Kalpeshbhai Amthabhai The Ito बनाम/ Desai Ward-1 V/S. Rabari Vas Mehsana At & Post : Chhathiyarda Ta & Dist. Mehsana Mehsana – 384 002 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Auzpd 9800 A अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) .. Assessee By : Shri Ankit S. Rajyaguru, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Ankit S. Rajyaguru, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.DR
Section 148Section 69A

AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. RELEIF SOUGHT: PLEASE, CONSIDER THE PROOF AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PROVIDED BY ASSESSEE. AND GIVE US OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AGAINST THAT ORDER. AS OUR BUSINESS IS "RETAIL SELLING OF MILK" FOR THAT WE HAVE ALSO PROVIDED EVIDANCE BUT AEESSING OFFICER AND COMISSONER ... file for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to pass a fresh order after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after duly considering all the submissions, explanations, and documentary evidence presented by the assessee. Kalpeshbhai Amthabhai Desai vs. ITO Asst. Year

Dharmendra Shantilal Patel, HUF, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 660/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

notice to assessee before enhancing assessment and had also given several adjournments to assessee for hearing of appeals, but, assessee did not avail opportunity of being heard, contention of assessee that no reasonable opportunity of being heard had been given by Commissioner (Appeals) being without merits

Dharmendra Shantilal Patel, HUF, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1) Now Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 590/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

notice to assessee before enhancing assessment and had also given several adjournments to assessee for hearing of appeals, but, assessee did not avail opportunity of being heard, contention of assessee that no reasonable opportunity of being heard had been given by Commissioner (Appeals) being without merits

Deelip Ganpatrao Korde, Nashik vs. ACIT Circle 1, Nashik

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

ITA 1373/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1373/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Deelip Ganpatrao Korde, V The Assistant Shop No.1, Purvi Apt Behind S Commissioner Of Sai Palace, Chetna Nagar, Nashik Income Tax, Circle-1, – 422009. Nashik. Pan: Afnpk2831F Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket M Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde - Dr Date Of Hearing 23/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/10/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961, Dated 16.05.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.74,64,500 U/S 68 Towards Alleged Unexplained Cash Deposits During Demonetization Period Made By The A.O. In The Ex-Parte Asst, Order U/S 144 On The Ground That The Appellant Had Failed To Explain Source Of The Cash Deposits In The Course Of The Ex-Parte Asst, Proceedings Without Appreciating That The Said Addition Was Not Justified On Facts & In Law.

Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 274Section 68

justice, the matter may please be set aside to the file of the A.O. for conducting asst, afresh after providing one more opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 3. The appellant submits that out of the two notices issued by C1T(A), the first notice dated 05.02.2021 was issued ... justice, the matter may please be set aside to the file of the A.O. for conducting asst, afresh after giving one more opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 4. The appellant craves leave to add/ alter/ amend any of the grounds of appeal.” Submission of ld.AR : 2. Ld.AR

Ganesh Vishnu Harde, Ahmednagar vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ahmednagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1369/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1367, 1368 & 1369/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Ganesh Vishnu Harde, V The Income Tax Officer, 1, At Post Sonai, Newasa Dist, S Ward-2, Ahmednagar. Ahmednagar – 414105. Pan: Ahgph2574P Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 23/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/10/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Are Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2014-15, A.Y.2015-16 & A.Y.2016-17; All Dated 23.04.2024. Since The Issue Involved Is Common, All These Three Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By The Common Order.

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 69A

case and in Law the Respected CIT(A) - NFAC erred in confirming additions made by the Ld. Assessing Officer without providing the sufficient opportunity of being heard and hence the impugned order may please be set aside and the matter may please be remanded back to the Ld. Assessing Officer

Ganesh Vishnu Harde, Ahmednagar vs. ITO, Ward-2 Ahmednagar, Ahmednagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1368/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1367, 1368 & 1369/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Ganesh Vishnu Harde, V The Income Tax Officer, 1, At Post Sonai, Newasa Dist, S Ward-2, Ahmednagar. Ahmednagar – 414105. Pan: Ahgph2574P Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 23/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/10/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Are Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2014-15, A.Y.2015-16 & A.Y.2016-17; All Dated 23.04.2024. Since The Issue Involved Is Common, All These Three Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By The Common Order.

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 69A

case and in Law the Respected CIT(A) - NFAC erred in confirming additions made by the Ld. Assessing Officer without providing the sufficient opportunity of being heard and hence the impugned order may please be set aside and the matter may please be remanded back to the Ld. Assessing Officer

Ganesh Vishnu Harde, Ahmednagar vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ahmednagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1367/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1367, 1368 & 1369/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Ganesh Vishnu Harde, V The Income Tax Officer, 1, At Post Sonai, Newasa Dist, S Ward-2, Ahmednagar. Ahmednagar – 414105. Pan: Ahgph2574P Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 23/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/10/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Are Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2014-15, A.Y.2015-16 & A.Y.2016-17; All Dated 23.04.2024. Since The Issue Involved Is Common, All These Three Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By The Common Order.

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 69A

case and in Law the Respected CIT(A) - NFAC erred in confirming additions made by the Ld. Assessing Officer without providing the sufficient opportunity of being heard and hence the impugned order may please be set aside and the matter may please be remanded back to the Ld. Assessing Officer

Ramesh Kamadula, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-9(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 990/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Ramesh Kamadula, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 9(3), Hyderabad. Pan : Derpk3108H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri G. Venkata Nagaraju, Ca Revenue By: Ms. V. Koteshwaramma, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri G. Venkata Nagaraju, CAFor Respondent: Ms. V. Koteshwaramma, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

much as it suffers from the vice of violation of the principles of natural justice and denial of opportunity of being heard, rendering the assessment void ab initio. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. NFAC has grossly erred in dismissing

Kona Shanthi Kumari, Kommanapalli vs. Assement Unit, Delhi

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

ITA 372/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 372/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) Kona Shanthi Kumari V. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department 2-64/2, Kommanapalli Nfac, Delhi Tuni, Kakinada – 533449 Andhra Pradesh [Pan : Dwbpk4623P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 69

circumstances of the case.” 5. At the outset, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] submitted that Ld.CIT(A) passed exparte order without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, therefore, considering additions/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, Ld.AR pleaded that the matter may be remitted back to the file ... keeping in view the additions / disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, I am of the view that assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in order to meet the principles of natural justice

Subba Rao Jaladi, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

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

ITA 371/VIZ/2024[2013-14 ]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 147rSection 148Section 194CSection 250Section 250(6)

outset, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] submitted that Assessing Officer as well as the Ld.CIT(A) passed exparte order without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, therefore, considering additions/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, Ld.AR pleaded that the matter may be remitted back to the file ... view the additions / disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, we are of the considered view that assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in order to meet the principles of natural justice, we are of the view

The Society of Jesus Mary Joseph Snehalaya, Mangalagiri vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

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

ITA 369/VIZ/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 12ASection 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 48Section 69Section 69A

outset, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] submitted that Assessing Officer as well as the Ld.CIT(A) passed exparte order without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, therefore, considering additions/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, Ld.AR pleaded that the matter may be remitted back to the file ... view the additions / disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, we are of the considered view that assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in order to meet the principles of natural justice, we are of the view

Beaver Estates Private Limited, Kochi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Range 1, Kochi

ITA 896/COCH/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhgood Homes Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Corporate Range-1 3Rd Floor, Puthuran Plaza C.R. Building, Is Press Road Mg Road, Kpcc Junction Vs. Kochi 682018 Ernakulam 682011 [Pan: Aabcg0444L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Beaver Estates Pvt. Ltd Acit, Corporate Range-1 Asian School Of Architecture C.R. Building, Is Press Road & Design Innovation Kochi 682018 Vs. Silversand Island, Vytila Road Ernakulam 682019 [Pan: Aadcb0193M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 250

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred in not providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the Appellant while passing the appellate order to explain why the Easement income should not be assessed as Income from Business. 9. The claim

Good Homes Private Limited, Kochi vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Kochi

ITA 893/COCH/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhgood Homes Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Corporate Range-1 3Rd Floor, Puthuran Plaza C.R. Building, Is Press Road Mg Road, Kpcc Junction Vs. Kochi 682018 Ernakulam 682011 [Pan: Aabcg0444L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Beaver Estates Pvt. Ltd Acit, Corporate Range-1 Asian School Of Architecture C.R. Building, Is Press Road & Design Innovation Kochi 682018 Vs. Silversand Island, Vytila Road Ernakulam 682019 [Pan: Aadcb0193M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 250

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred in not providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the Appellant while passing the appellate order to explain why the Easement income should not be assessed as Income from Business. 9. The claim

G Sekar, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw 3(5), Chennai

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

ITA 1417/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1417/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2017-18 M/S. G.Sekar, Huf, Income Tax Officer, No.1, Palat Madhavan Road, Non-Corp, Ward-3(5), Mahalingapuram, Chennai. Chennai-34 [Pan: Aadhg6924J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri J.Vignesh, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri J.Vignesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 129Section 143(3)Section 250

that the appellant is not interested in providing the grounds agitated for the onus rests on the appellant. For these reasons despite fair opportunities of being heard provided were provided not utilized and the appellant sought only adjournments citing one reason or the other, the stand ... appeal. Accordingly, the order of Ld. CIT(A) is set aside with the directions to readjudicate the appeal afresh after giving all opportunity of being heard to the assesse. The assesse is directed to make necessary compliance to the notices and provide the Ld. CIT(A) with all required details

M/S. Shri Saraswathi Credit Souharda Sahakari Sangha Limited, Puttur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Puttur

ITA 1729/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavshri Saraswathi Credit

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR
Section 234Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

files of Ld.AO to examine the same de novo in the light of the above judgment. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard is to be granted to assess in accordance with law.” 3.1 In view of the order of the ITAT, which is identical to the facts

Krishik Survodaya Foundation, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 1674/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L., CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 250

required for substantiating his case and for proper adjudication by Page 5 of 5 the revenue authorities. Needless to say that reasonable opportunity of being heard be given to the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court

Kadharegowda Siddaraju, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mysore

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

ITA 1641/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George Kr Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shri. Kadharegowda Siddaraju, Vs. Ito, 2909, Maharaja Complex Jai Ward – 1(1), Bhuvaneshwari Bar & Restaurant, Mysuru. B. N. Rod, Lashkar Mohalla, Mysuru – 570 001. Pan : Atops 8978 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Pratibha, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37

With the aforesaid observation, the matter is restored to the files of the AO. The AO shall afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before a decision is taken in the matter. It is ordered accordingly. Page 4 of 4 9. In the result, appeal filed