“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

Syeda Mariam, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(4), Bengaluru

In the result we accepted the legal issue and held that the assessment order dated 30

ITA 341/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Syeda Mariam The Income Tax Officer No. 482, 14Th Main Ward - 3(1)(4) Koramangala 3Rd Block Vs. Bmtc Building, 80Ft. Road Bangalore 560034 6Th Block, Koramangala Pan – Aazpm2737P Bengaluru 560095 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, Ca Revenue By: Shri V. Parithivel, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Soundararajan K.,J.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenges The Order Of The Cit(A)-11, Bengaluru Dated 28.12.2023 In Respect Of The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income On 28.07.2014. Thereafter A Survey U/S. 133A Was Conducted At The Company M/S. Intact Developers P. Ltd., In Which The Assessee Is A Director & Based On The Survey It Was Found That The Assessee Had Lent Unsecured Loans To The Company & In Support Of The Unsecured Loans The Assessee Filed Confirmation Letters From The Company. Insofar As The Source For The Loan, The Assessee Submitted That She Got Capital Gain In Ays 2013-14 & 2014-15 & Out Of This She Offered Loans To The Company. The Ld. Assessing Officer (Ao) Verified The Details Filed By The Assessee & Came To The Conclusion That There

For Appellant: Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT-DR

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 54Section 548Section 54B

opposed to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2 The Order is passed in haste, without providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity of being heard. 3 Syeda Mariam 3 The Order is passed against the principles of natural justice and thus liable to be quashed. 4 The Ld. AO erred

Modern Flats Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 688/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

For Appellant: A. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 250

back to the file of the Ld. AO to consider the details filed the appellant and pass a fresh order by providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant. The appellant is also directed to appear before the Ld. AO and make necessary compliance to explain its case with

Rana Kapoor, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stand

ITA 451/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 147Section 250Section 28

were going on Mr. Gandhi further submitted that not sending/issuing notices of hearing at the correct address, amounts to non-granting of sufficient opportunity of being heard and therefore for the ends of justice, the Assessee may be afforded an opportunity of being heard by remanding the instant case

Rana Kapoor, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - 6(4), Mumbai

ITA 450/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 147Section 250Section 28

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH

Dimension Consulting Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO - Ward - 6(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 431/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2015-16 Dimension Consulting Ito- Ward- 6(2)(3) Private Limited Mumbai- 400037. 701, Jullian Alps, B Wing, Vs. Bhakti Park, Wadala (East), Mumbai- 400037. Pan: Aaecd1724B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For : Assessee By : Shri Govind Aggarwal, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. R. Makwana- Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Shri Govind Aggarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana- SR. D.R

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

accordingly, remand the matter back 6 Dimension Consulting Private Limited to the file of the Ld. CIT (A) to provide the appellant the opportunity of being heard and decide the issue accordingly. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court

Punyam Education Trust, Thane vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 2864/MUM/2024[N.A.]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Akshay Tapadiya, Sr. D/R

Section 10Section 35Section 80G

above Circular, the ld. CIT(E) is directed to reconsider the application and decide the issue afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 25th

The Clearing Corporation of India Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Na

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

ITA 2848/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi, A/RFor Respondent: Ms. Madhu Malati Ghosh, CIT, D/R & Shri Akshay

Section 37

variable pay policy thoroughly and decide the issue afresh as per the relevant provisions of law and after affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 12. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 25th July

Shreevasaird Swetamber Murtipujak Tapagachh Jain Sang, Vasai West vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 2800/MUM/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2023-24 Shreevasaird Swetamber Cit Exemption, Pune, Murtipujak Tapagachh Jain Sang, 322, Income Tax Office Pmt Vs. Plot No. 15A, Ambadi Road, Vasai Building Shankar Seth Road, Road, West Palghar-401202 Pune-411037. Pan No. Aahts 4589 H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Ms. Jytoi Samant

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

cancelled. The assessee 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should not be cancelled. The assessee was also given opportunity was also given opportunity of being heard vide the said notice. of being heard vide the said notice. The assessee was specifically informed that in the event of failure ... explanation to the show cause notice till date nor availed the submitted explanation to the show cause notice till date nor availed the opportunity of being heard. opportunity of being heard. 3. Since, the 3. Since, the assessee has not furnished any explanation to the assessee has not furnished

The Clearing Corporation of India Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 8(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2794/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi, A/RFor Respondent: Ms. Madhu Malati Ghosh, CIT, D/R & Shri Akshay

Section 37

Trustees of Jnana Vistarak Sangh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer- Exemption Ward 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed

ITA 2627/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Bhandari a/wFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Choughule (ADDL.CIT)DR

Section 10(1)Section 10(34)Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250

Form 35 online and merely a procedural lapse must not form basis of dismissing the appeal without providing an opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. d) On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact ... accept the petition and directed to pass the appellate order in merit. Needless to say, thatld. CIT (A) shall provide proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee in set aside proceedings. The evidence/explanation submitted by assessee in its defense shall be admitted by the learned

Neobags Overseas Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, ITA No.1854/Mum/2024 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1854/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: ShriDhiraj Kumar, SR.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250

Reply There was no compliance to above notices which were sent on the email id.registered under e-filing portal. Despite being given repeated opportunities of being heard, there has been no compliance to the notices. It is apparent that the appellant is not interested in pursuing his appeal ... speaking order should be passed by considering the submission of the assessee. Needless to say, the Ld.CIT(A) shall provide proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee in set aside proceedings. The evidence / explanation submitted by the assessee in its defense shall be admitted byld.CIT

Suhas Pandurang Mohite, Palghar vs. ITO, Ward--1, Palghar

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

ITA 1798/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora (Virtaully Appeared)For Respondent: Shri Sunil K. Agwane, Sr. D/R

justice we restore this appeal to the file of the NFAC/CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee by way of proper serving of notice through e-mail. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Vasai Urban Co-Operative C Redit Society Ltd, Vasai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Thane

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1507/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Meena, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

head “income from other sources” and pass the Vasai Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd assessment order afresh after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused

Madrasa Baghe Rasool Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 1390/MUM/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil PadvekarFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT, DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

file of the learned CIT(E) for de novo adjudication as per law, after providing reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We direct the assessee to furnish all the information as may be sought by the learned CIT(E) in this regard. With the above directions

Kavita Milind Rananaware, Panvel vs. Income Tax Officer, Panvel

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos 1116 & 1117/Mum/2024 are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1117/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shriamarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: ShriP.D. Choughule (Addl. CIT)SR DR

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 271Section 68Section 69

with the department the assessment proceedings for the A.Y 2013-14. The NFAC is of the view the appellant did not avail the opportunities of being heard and had failed to f the requisite evidence/documents in respect of her contention made towards the assessment/penalty proceedings. This is a fact that ... appellant did not avail the opportunities to be heard before the assessment authority. The appellant's submission regarding non communication between her and professional, is also noted. The quantum appeal was filed by the appellant by an inordinate delay c period of more than 7 months before the appellate authority

Kavita Milind Rananaware, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Panvel

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos 1116 & 1117/Mum/2024 are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1116/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shriamarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: ShriP.D. Choughule (Addl. CIT)SR DR

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 271Section 68Section 69

Sandeep Ramesh Keni, Maharashtra vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1080/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2013-14 Sandeep Ramesh Keni The Commissioner Of B-Wing, Room No. 24, Income Tax Panvel Plaza, Government Of India Behind S. K. Bajaj Vs. Ministry Of Finance, Showroom, Income Tax Department, Panvel, National Faceless Appeal Raigad-410206. Centre, Pan: Avapk7931R Delhi- 110011 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For : Assessee By : Shri Mayank Bagla, Adv. A/W Shri. Hiten Lala, Adv. : Smt. Kakoli Uttam Ghosh, D.R. Revenue By : 24 . 06 . 2024 Date Of Hearing : 25 . 07 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Bagla, Adv. a/w Shri. Hiten LalaFor Respondent: 24 . 06 . 2024

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 250Section 44

notice u/s. 142(1) and show cause notice issued by the Ld. AO was duly served on the assessee. e. That no opportunity of being heard was provided to the appellant by the NFAC and the appellant had no knowledge of any notice being served upon the assessee. f. That ... accordingly, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to provide the appellant opportunity of being heard and then decide the issue as per law. The appellant is also directed to appear before the Ld. CIT (A) to explain

Rahul Sibal, Gurgaon vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre - ITO Ward 3(1), Gurgaon

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

ITA 571/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarrahul Sibal, Vs. Ito, Ward 3 (1), 218 A, Tower 2, 18Th Floor, Gurgaon. Magnolias Dlf Golf Course, Dlf Phase 5, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon – 122 003 (Haryana). (Pan : Ftqps8636N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Brij Mohan Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2024 Date Of Order : 25.07.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahyathis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 31.07.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. That The Assessment Order Dated 23.02.2022 Passed Under Section 147/144 Rws 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') For Assessment Year ('Ay') 2016-17 By The Assessing Officer ('Ao') As Upheld By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As 'Cit(A)') Vide Order

For Appellant: Ms. Ananya Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Brij Mohan Singh, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 234ASection 250(6)

justice, we remit the issue to the file of AO. AO is directed to pass an order afresh after giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 25th

Anup Bansal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 44(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 2067/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaanup Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 44 (2), 3/7, Jai Dev Park, New Delhi. Near East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi – 110 026. (Pan : Ajlpb6284F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2024 Date Of Order : 25.07.2024 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 08.01.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. That On Facts & In Law The Order Dated 03Rd December 2019 Passed By The Assessing Officer {Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ao"} Is Bad In Law & Void Ab Initio. 2. That On Facts & In Law The Impugned Order Dated 08Th January 2024 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) {Hereinafter Referred To As The "Cit(A)"} Is Bad In Law & Void Ab Initio.

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 144Section 234A

justice, I remit the issue to the file of AO. AO is directed to pass an order afresh after giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 25th

Khola Bricks Udyog, Berli Kalan, Rewari vs. ITO, Ward-1, Rewari

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

ITA 2049/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Delhi25 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyakhola Bricks Udyog, Vs. Ito, Ward 1, Shri Bhagwan, Rewari. S/O Bhoundu Ram, Berli Kalan (310), Musepur, Rewari – 123 401 (Haryana). (Pan : Aajfk0181D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2024 Date Of Order : 25.07.2024 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 17.10.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Passing Ex-Parte Order. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Or The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Passing Order Without Providing Proper Opportunity Of Being Heard. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Order Passed By Ld. Cit (A) Is Against The Principles Of Natural Justice.

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 234ASection 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

facts and circumstances or the case and in law, the ld. CIT (A) erred in passing order without providing proper opportunity of being heard. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by ld. CIT (A) is against the principles of natural justice ... issue to the file of ld. CIT (A). Ld. CIT (A) is directed to pass an order afresh after giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 25th