← 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

Aravind Arunachalam Vellore, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 26(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2856/MUM/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhary & Shri Gagan Goyalaravind Arunachalam Vellore, A 603, Zeel Darshan, A. S. Marg Near Custom Colony, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076 Pan No. Acmpv9998A ..... Appellant Vs. Ito Ward 26(1) (2) R. No. 304, 3Rd Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G-Block, Bandra East Maharashtra -400 051 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Raichand A/W ShriFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 194HSection 250Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT (A) with a direction to hear the assessee again after giving a proper opportunity of being heard and issue notices on email IDs provided by the assessee also. The assessee is directed to be vigilant enough in terms of visiting ITBA

Income Tax Officer, Ward 4.1, Thane vs. Jeevan Vikas Nagri Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit, Maryadt

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19 are allowed

ITA 2241/MUM/2024[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2024

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Surendra Jain, Sr. DR
Section 69ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

Supreme Court in the case of Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank Ltd(supra). Needless to say that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is ordered accordingly. In result the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. 21. In the result, the appeal

Vintage & Classic Car Club of India, Mumbai vs. CIT(Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 2091/MUM/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

Section 12ASection 80G

Supreme Court in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (supra). Needless to say that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is ordered accordingly. 4. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open

Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Thane vs. Jeevan Vikas Nagri Sahakari Patpedi Maryadit, Vasai

ITA 1961/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Ms Padmavathy S, Am, Ι.Τ.Α. No.918/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Jeevan Vikas Nagri Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit Jeevika, First Floor, Rev. Fr. Raskina Marg, Post-Nirmal, Tal-Vasai, District-Palghar, Maharashtra-401304. Pan : Aacaj1997J Vs. Ito, Circle-4 Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, A Wing, Road No. 16Z, Thane (W), Maharashtra-400604. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.2441/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ito, Circle-4 Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, A Wing, Road No. 16Z, Thane (W), Maharashtra-400604. Vs. Jeevan Vikas Nagri Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit Jeevika, First Floor, Rev. Fr. Raskina Marg, Post-Nirmal, Tal-Vasai, District-Palghar, Maharashtra-401304. Pan : Aacaj1997J Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.917/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Jeevan Vikas Nagri Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit Jeevika, First Floor, Rev. Fr. Raskina Marg, Post-Nirmal, Tal-Vasai, District-Palghar, Maharashtra-401304. Pan : Aacaj1997J Vs. Asst. Cit, Circle-4 Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, A Wing, Road No. 16Z, Wagle Estate, Thane (W), Maharashtra- 400604. 2

Section 69ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM & SHRI MS PADMAVATHY S, AM, Ι

Vintage & Classic Car Club of India, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 1859/MUM/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

Section 12ASection 80G

Supreme Court in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (supra). Needless to say that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is ordered accordingly. 4. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open

Golden Hardware, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1252/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rohan DespandeFor Respondent: Shri R. r. Makwana, Sr. DR

issues to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the issues afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to avail the opportunity and furnish all necessary details to prove the genuineness of the impugned

Ashraf Abdul Gani Khan, Mumbai vs. Ward 42(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1237/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Sr. DR

file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decided afresh on merits of the case after affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Order pronounced in the Court on 2nd September, 2024 at Mumbai. (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 02/09/2024 *AK KEOT

Kamal, Shahjahanpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Range -1(4), Shahjahanpur

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

ITA 384/LKW/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: The Nfac. However, The Appeal Before The Nfac Came To Be Dismissed For The Reason Of Non-Compliance. 4. Now, The Assessee Has Approached This Tribunal Challenging The Dismissal Of His Appeal By The Nfac By Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing The Order Which Is Unlawful, Unjustified & Against The Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing The Order Without Giving Adequate Opportunity Of Being Heard. 3. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Upholding Addition Of Rs.33.30,000/- Under Section 69A Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 Made By The Id. Assessing Officer. 4. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing The Appellate Order Which Is Contrary To The Facts & Law. 5. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Alter Or Withdraw Any Grounds Of Appeal Or Raise Any New Ground Appeal During The Pendency Of Appeal.

Section 69A

justice. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in passing the order without giving adequate opportunity of being heard. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in upholding addition of Rs.33.30,000/- under section

Omsons Marketing Private Limited Quila Chowk Faridkot, Punjab vs. Assessing Officer NFAC Delhi Jurisdiction AO DCIT CC-2 Sco-1- 6 3Rd Floor, Opp. Bvm School Ludhiana, Punjab

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

ITA 87/CHANDI/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Aug 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: The Cit(A), Since The Counsel The Counsel Of The Assessee Did Not Intimate About The Date Of Hearing Of The Case & A Such There Was A Reasonable Cause In Not Submitting Reply Before The Appellate Authority. 3. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Following Additions:- I) Addition Of Machinery Repair & Consumable Rs. 15,500/- (Para 3.1 Of The Assessment Order)

For Appellant: Shri Parveen Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR

Assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the order Ex-parte without giving proper/reasonable opportunity of being heard and has failed to appreciate that there was a reasonable cause in not submitting the reply on the merits of the case

Ovez Arifbhai Lakhani, Bhavnagar vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 590/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Benches, Has Arisen From The Revisionary Order Dated 12.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Principal

For Appellant: Shri Bharat R. Popat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-D.R
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263

examining the facts of the case to the extent of the issues discussed in the revisionary order after giving the assessee an reasonable opportunity of being heard. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in Memo of Appeal filed with the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad ... I.T.A No. 590/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No. 8 Ovez Arifbhai Lakhani v. Pr. CIT revisionary order, and after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assesssee. 4. Aggrieved , the assessee filed first appeal with Tribunal. The ld. counsel for the assessee opened argument before the Bench and submitted

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur vs. Rakesh Bhikhalal Shah, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is treated as allowed for a statistical purpose

ITA 577/AHD/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 577/Ahd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21) िनधा"रण वष" Assistant Commissioner Rakesh Bhikhalal Shah बनाम/ बनाम बनाम बनाम Paras Vidhyanagar Hou. Of Income Tax Vs. Circle-1(1)(1), Vejalpur, Soc., Vibhag No.3, Opp. Ahmedabad Vidhyanagar High School, Usmanpura, Gujarat 380013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acdps9763R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr. Dr अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vivek Chavda, Ar Date Of Hearing 28/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30/08/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 25.05.2023 For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Revised Return Of Income For The Ay 2020-21 On 15/10/2020 Declaring Income Of Rs.6,25,96,830/-. The Assessee Had Shown Interest Income Against Which Interest Expenditure Was Claimed.

For Respondent: Shri Vivek Chavda, AR
Section 57

577/Ahd/2023 [ACIT vs. Rakesh Bhikhalal Shah] A.Y. 2020-21 - 5 – figures of loans taken and loans advanced after allowing and proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The AO should also consider the investments made by the assessee in the equity shares and mutual funds out of the borrowed

Brahman Sabha Karveer, Maharashtra vs. CIT Exemption Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 795/PUN/2024[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2024AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)Section 36ASection 41Section 80GSection 80G(5)

application shall be liable to be rejected and the registration / approval shall also be liable to be cancelled. The assessee was also given opportunity of being heard. The said notice was duly served on the assessee through e-portal and email. 3.1. However, the assessee neither furnished any compliance ... said notice nor availed the opportunity of being heard. 4. The assessee has failed to furnish the details called for under the provisions of sub-clause (a) of clause (ii) of second proviso to section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to verify the genuineness of activities

Sudarshan Bhagwandas Naval, Jalgaon vs. PCIT (Central Circle 1 Nagpur), Nagpur

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 600/PUN/2024[AY 2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2024

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.600/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sudarshan Bhagwandas Vs. Pcit (Central), Nagpur. Naval, Naval Multispecialty Hospital, Near Bhaskar Market, Jilla Peth, M.J. College Road, Jalgaon- 425001. Pan : Aafpn7830C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Abhishek K. Choksy & Shri Ankit Davda Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2024 आदेश / Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19 Arises Against The Pcit (Central), Nagpur’S Order Dated 01.02.2024 Passed In Case No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2023-24/1060387551(1) Involving Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short “The Act”. Heard Both The Parties At Length. Case File Perused.

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek K. Choksy &For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 263(1)

necessary enquiries to ascertain the income of the assessee and pass the assessment order afresh in accordance with the law, after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.” 3. We advert to the basic relevant facts. The assessee; an individual, was subjected to section 133A survey action

Akash, Noida vs. Income Tax Officer (It), Ward-1, Pune

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

ITA 1535/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 56(2)(vii)

within time. Hence, the discrepancies raised by DRP on the basis of its own presumptions, surmises and conjectures should be quashed. 5. No opportunity of being heard has been given by DRP which is against the provisions of Section 144C (11) of Income Tax Act 1961 and blatantly ignored

Ajit Mohandas, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 610/HYD/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.610/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ajit Mohandas Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 2(2) Pan:Aehpm6928E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Kr Sriharsha, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/08/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri KR Sriharsha, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 57

material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. It is the prayer of the assessee for providing another opportunity of being heard to the assessee before the learned CIT (A) to substantiate its case with documentary evidence and details. Considering the totality of the facts

Chandan Singh Contractor, Bhopal vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi

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

ITA 348/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Chandan Singh Contractor, Cit(A) ( Nfac), E-88/33 Basant Kunj, Delhi Vs. Arera Colony, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaffc8954Q Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 29.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 250(6)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

That the learned lower authorities were not justified in not allowing proper and meaningful opportunity of being heard. Also the Learned CIT (Appeals), National Faceless E-Appeal Centre, was also not justified in not allowing proper lawful opportunity before confirming the addition. The order has been passed u/s 144 without

Smt. Sharda, Harsud, Khandwa vs. The PCIT-1, Indore

In the result, appeals of the assesse in ITANo

ITA 263/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Premnarayan Pcit (1) 31, Somgaon Khurd, Aaykar Bhawan Harsud, Vs. Indore Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Cjzpp1164J Smt. Sharda Pcit (1) A/45, Naya Harsud, Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Khandwa Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Fdxps2997P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 263Section 54B

erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 5 You are hereby given an opportunity of being heard to explain as to why the proposed revision should not be carried out. For this purpose, your reply should be received on or before 30/01/2024 ... Page 22 of 26 ITANo.262 & 263/Ind/2024 Shri Premnarayan & Smt. Sharda been indicated for further investigation in the preceding discussion, after according due opportunities of being heard to the assessee.” 6.6 Thus, the direction to the AO to re-examining the issue itself shows that the Pr. CIT was not sure

Shri Premnarayan, Harsud, Khandwa vs. The PCIT-1, Indore

In the result, appeals of the assesse in ITANo

ITA 262/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Premnarayan Pcit (1) 31, Somgaon Khurd, Aaykar Bhawan Harsud, Vs. Indore Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Cjzpp1164J Smt. Sharda Pcit (1) A/45, Naya Harsud, Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Khandwa Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Fdxps2997P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 263Section 54B

erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 5 You are hereby given an opportunity of being heard to explain as to why the proposed revision should not be carried out. For this purpose, your reply should be received on or before 30/01/2024 ... Page 22 of 26 ITANo.262 & 263/Ind/2024 Shri Premnarayan & Smt. Sharda been indicated for further investigation in the preceding discussion, after according due opportunities of being heard to the assessee.” 6.6 Thus, the direction to the AO to re-examining the issue itself shows that the Pr. CIT was not sure

Sushant Kumar Chatterjee, Kolar Road vs. ITO- 1-(3), Bhopal

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

ITA 251/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Sushant Kumar Chatterjee, Ito-1(3), House No.34 Eden Garden, Bhopal Chunnabhati, Vs. Kolar Road, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Acrpc0043Q Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 29.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024 O R D E R

Section 50C

That the learned lower authorities, the Learned CIT (Appeals), National Faceless E-Appeal Centre, were not justified in not allowing proper and meaningful opportunity of being heard. 4. That the various findings of the learned lower authorities are opposed to the facts hence the same may kindly be quashed

Shanthi Gold House, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-1(6), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is dismissed

ITA 746/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.746/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shanthi Gold House, Income Tax Officer, No.72, Usman Road, T.Nagar, Non-Corporate Ward-1(6), Chennai -600 017. Chennai [Pan: Aaafs1612C] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.Girish Kumar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri V.Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2024

For Appellant: Shri S.Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V.Nandakumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 269SSection 271DSection 40A(3)

PCIT has duly considered the defence offered by the assesse and the blame of passing an ex-parte order without affording adequate opportunity of being heard cannot be rested on his shoulder. The argument of the assesse therefore fails. 5.0 Another issue raised by the assesse is that the impugned