“opportunity of being heard”

Chief Offier, Davangere vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward, Davangere

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

that would be essential and required for substantiating its case and for proper adjudication by the revenue authorities. Needless to say that reasonable opportunity of being heard be given to the assessee. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the proceedings and in case of further default, the assessee shall

Chief Offier, Davangere vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward, Davangere

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

that would be essential and required for substantiating its case and for proper adjudication by the revenue authorities. Needless to say that reasonable opportunity of being heard be given to the assessee. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the proceedings and in case of further default, the assessee shall

Kanaka Credit Co Operative Society Limited, Chitradurga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Davangere

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2014-15

That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in deciding the appeal ex-parte without providing a proper opportunity of being heard by sending the appeal hearing communication manually as part of principles of natural justice. 3. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought ... that would be essential and required for substantiating his case and for proper adjudication by the revenue authorities. Needless to say that reasonable opportunity of being heard be given to the assessee. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the proceedings and in case of further default, the assessee shall

Sri. Kanala Subramanyam, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(5), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeykanala Subramanyam The Income Tax Officer No. 58/1, 8Th Cross, 12Th Main Ward - 5(2)(5), Bengaluru Raghavendra Block Vs. Srinagar, Bengaluru 560050 Pan – Bryps2091H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri T. Srinivasa, Ca Revenue By: Shri Subramanian S., Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Cit(A)) Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2003-24/1062689536(1) Dated 15.03.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - 1. The Impugned Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Nfac Is Highly Unjust, Arbitrary & Contrary To Law & The Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Nfac Has Failed To Appreciate That The Banking Transaction Of The Appellant During F.Y. 2016-17 Were In The Normal Course Of The Appellant'S Business Activities & That The Cash Deposits To His Bank Account

computer literate and also not aware of the provisions of Income Tax Act. Further, the learned A.R. vehemently submitted that as no reasonable opportunity of being heard has been provided to the assessee, it is a clear violation of natural justice and prayed to grant one more opportunity to substantiate ... documents/record before the AO which he intent to file before the Tribunal by way of paper book. Needless to say the reasonable opportunity of being heard to be given to the assessee and the ld. AO is to decide the issue in accordance with law. In case of further default

Sri. Kanala Subramanyam, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(5), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu (Accountant Member), Shri Keshav Dubey (Judicial Member)

department nor had received any effective notice/communication including the show cause notice. Further, the ld. A.R. vehemently submitted that as no reasonable opportunity of being heard has been provided to the assessee, it is a clear violation of Principles of the natural justice and prayed to grant one more opportunity ... documents/record before the AO which he intent to file before the Tribunal by way of paper book. Needless to say the reasonable opportunity of being heard to be given to the assessee and the ld. AO is to decide the issue in accordance with law. In case of further default

Marathi Narayana Sathisha, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(5), Bengaluru

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Marathi Narayana Sathisha, Vs. Ito, No.98, 1St Cross, Near White Park Ward – 3(3)(5), Apartments, Kudulu Village, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 068. Pan : Bjsps 3665 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Monish Sowkar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 21.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.06.2024 O R D E R Per Soundararajan K: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’) Dated 29.11.2023, In Respect Of Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Working As A Physical Instructor In The Cambridge Public School At Bangalore. During The Demonetization Period, The Ao Found That The Assessee Had Deposited Cash Into His Bank Accounts Amounting To Rs.22,53,400/- & Therefore Issued Notices Under Section 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act For Which The Assessee Had Failed To File Reply. Thereafter, A Show Cause Notice Was Also Issued To The Assessee For Which Also Assessee Page 2 Of 5

file of the AO for deciding the issue afresh after considering the documents submitted by the assessee and after granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court

Anand Immanuel Panchikal, Bangalore vs. DCIT- Circle-6 (1) (1), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Anand Immanuel Panchikal Dcit, Circle 6(1)(1) B3, South Avenue, No. 12 Ii Floor, Bmtc Building 17Th B. Main, 6Th Block Vs. Koramangala 560095 Koramangala 560095 Pan – Abqpp5573J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, Ca Revenue By: Shri Subramanian S., Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Soundararajan K.,J.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenges The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Cit(A)) Dated 29.12.2023 In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Ld. Assessing Officer (Ao) Rejected The Claim Of The Assessee To Pay Tax U/S. 44Ad Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) At 8% On The Ground That The Assessee Is A Commission Agent And, Therefore, As Per Sec. 44Ad(6) Of The Act He Is Not Eligible To Pay Tax U/S. 44Ad. Against The Said Order The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before The Cit(A) & Contended That The Mere Deduction Of Tds By The Payee Would Not Treat The Petitioner As Commission Agent & Therefore Prayed To Set Aside The Order. The Assessee Further Contended That No Show Cause Notice Was Issued By The Ld.

through the assessment order, the ld. AO had issued notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act and also granted an opportunity of being heard about the escapement of income. But the AO citing time barring, had passed the assessment order thereafter. Further the assessee was not able ... authorities and remit the issue to the file of the AO to decide the issue afresh after granting an 3 Anand Immanuel Panchikal opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also make it clear that the assessee should cooperate with the ld. AO in completing the assessment

Surabhi Souharda Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(5), Bengaluru

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

ITA No.1052/Bang/2024 Surabhi Souharda Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE