← 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

Shaheen Frozen Foods, Balapur vs. Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 346/NAG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 44ASection 68

file of the Assessing Officer and direct him to adjudicate the matter denovo on merit in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed adhere to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer and file all other details which

Sri Lakshmi Narayana Perumal Seva Trust, Chennai vs. CIT-Exemptions, Chennai

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

ITA 500/CHNY/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 12(1)(ac)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

file these documents before rejecting the assessee’s application. We are of the view that the CIT(E) has not allowed proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee and to file these papers. Hence, we set aside the order of ITA No.500 /Chny/2024 CIT(E) and remand the matter

Mariyappan Dhanalakshmi, Kumbakonam, Tamil Nadu vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Trichy

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

ITA 1558/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1557 & 1558/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 V. Mariyappan Dhanalakshmi, The Acit, 31, Chakrapani South Street, Circle-2(1), Kumbakonam-612 001. Trichy.

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Krishnan Ramaswamy
Section 133ASection 194C(6)

reads thus : "We will straightaway agree with the assessee's submission that the Income-tax Officer had not given to the assessee proper opportunity of being heard." 2. That the assessee could have placed evidence before the first appellate authority or before the Tribunal is really of no consequence ... aside the order of assessment and remand the matter to the assessing authority for fresh assessment after giving to the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard. 3. Two questions were placed before the High Court, of which the second question is not pressed. The first question reads thus

Mariyappan Dhanalakshmi, Kumbakonam, Tamil Nadu vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2(1), Trichy, Tamil Nadu

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

ITA 1557/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1557 & 1558/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 V. Mariyappan Dhanalakshmi, The Acit, 31, Chakrapani South Street, Circle-2(1), Kumbakonam-612 001. Trichy.

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Krishnan Ramaswamy
Section 133ASection 194C(6)

reads thus : "We will straightaway agree with the assessee's submission that the Income-tax Officer had not given to the assessee proper opportunity of being heard." 2. That the assessee could have placed evidence before the first appellate authority or before the Tribunal is really of no consequence ... aside the order of assessment and remand the matter to the assessing authority for fresh assessment after giving to the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard. 3. Two questions were placed before the High Court, of which the second question is not pressed. The first question reads thus

Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

ITA 387/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

assessee Corporation is before this Appellate Tribunal. 6. Learned AR for the assessee-appellant has submitted that the assessee was not provided adequate opportunity of being heard. Another ground raised by the ld. AR for the assessee is that while passing the impugned order, and thereby reducing MAT credit from ... dated 6.9.2023 and 12.1.2024, due to oversight . Therefore, the contention is that matter needs to be remitted back, so as to provide reasonable opportunity, of being heard to the assessee. 9. On behalf of the assessee, copy of notice dated 12.01.2024 and a list depicting dates of dispatch of previous

Narain Lal Agrawal, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 1 Jaipur, Jaipur

ITA 744/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jun 2024AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, "A" JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Income Tax Officer Ward 13(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Sterling Oil Resources Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 787/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. CIT) Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

selected under CASS for Limited Scrutiny assessment to examine "Expenses incurred for earning exempt income." 5. The Assessing officer, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, finally assessed the income at Rs.4,86,62,976/- u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 29.11.2019 by making a disallowance

Trio Assets Private Limited, Lower Parel, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms

ITA 773/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri - NoneFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule (Addl. CIT), SR. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 24Section 250Section 28Section 37

decided the said appeal ex-parte on the ground that no compliance was made by the assessee despite having been given sufficient opportunities of being heard to file reply and produce material to support its claim that the AO has made additions on wrong premise. 5. During the course ... proper to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue on merit after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the 4 M/s. Trio Assets Private Limited appellant. The appellant is also directed to submit all relevant material/document before

Trinity Kitchenware Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT Appeal -21, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms

ITA 1264/MUM/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Jigna Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. CIT), SR. D.R
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234FSection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

Assessing Officer as well as CIT Appeal has erred in law and in facts in passing the order against the natural justice as opportunity of being heard is not given. 3. The Ld. Assessing Officer as well as CIT Appeal has erred in law and in facts in making disallowance ... aside the order of the Ld. CIT (A) and restore the matter back 5 M/s. Trinity Kitchenware Ltd. to him to give another opportunity of being heard to the appellant and decide the issue afresh. The appellant is also directed to appear before the Ld. CIT (A) and produce

Karan Arora, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, New Delhi

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

ITA 1652/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. R. C. Rai, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Parul Singh, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 69A

deem it to be a fit to remand the issue to the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication de novo after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) shall issue notice to the valid address and the registered e-mail for initiation of the adjudicate

Satya Sankalp Villa (Ellisbridge) Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1132/AHD/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jun 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1132/Ahd/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2004-05) िनधा"रण वष" Satya Sankalp Villa The Income Tax Officer बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Ward – 8(1), Ahmedabad (Ellisbridge) P. Ltd. Vs. Dharmadev House, Shyamal Cross Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 380015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaics2707B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Mahesh Chhajed, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/06/2024 24/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xiv, Ahmedabad (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’), Dated 16.01.2014 For A.Y. 2004-05. 2. This Is Second Round Of Appeal Before This Tribunal. Before We Adjudicate The Grounds Taken By The Assessee In This Appeal, It Will Be Relevant To Recapitulate The Facts Of The Case.

For Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153C

aside and the matter was restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication after allowing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. The set aside proceeding was completed by the AO vide order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act dated 29.01.2013 and addition ... deductions should be brought to tax in the present year. The A.O. should pass necessary order as per law after allowing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Ground No.2 of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.” 18. The seized document based on which the addition was made

Shri Kadu Satwaji Gaikwad, Aurangabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Aurangabad

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

ITA 846/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.846/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Kadu Satwaji Gaikwad, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), Ns 1/14, 11Th Scheme, Near Aurangabad. Foster B. Ed College, Shivaji Nagar, Aurangabad- 431001. Pan : Ailpg9644D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Gawali Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.02.2024 Passed By Ld Addl./Jcit(A), Agra For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Appeal Addl/Jict(A)Agra Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs 10,40,000/— Without Considering The Material On Record Available In The First Appeal Proceeding. The Appeal Has Been Wrongly Dismissed, Which Is Not Justifiable & Is Liable To Be Set Aside By The Kind Of Interference Of This Hon’Ble Appellate Authority.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Ld. Addl./JCIT(A), Agra shall decide the appeal as per facts & law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notice issued by ld. Addl./JCIT(A), Agra and submit

Sshbpss Ramchandra Gopal Shelar Sherlarmama Yog Sanshodhan Seva Pratishthan, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 844/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.844/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : - Sshbpss Ramchandra Gopal V The Commissioner Of Shelar Shherlarmama Yog S Income Tax(Exemption), Sanshodhan Seva Pratishthan, Pune. S.No.124, Maeers Mit College Campus, Paud Road, Kothrud, Pune – 411038. Pan: Aaqts9502D Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri P.R.Mane – Dr Date Of Hearing 19/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax-Exemption, Pune U/Sec.80G Of The Act Dated 26.03.2024. The Ld.Cit(E) Dismissed The Application Of The Assessee On The Ground That The Application Is Time Barred. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : Sshbpss Ramchandra Gopal Shelar Sherlarmama Yog Sanshodhan Seva Pratishthan

Section 80GSection 80G(5)

case referred to in sub-clause (B) of clause (iv) of the first proviso, rejecting such application, after affording it a reasonable opportunity of being heard;] (iii) ……. New Procedure for registration: 6. The new provision for Registration was introduced by Finance Act, 2020. There was amendment in the registration procedure

St Mira'S College Alumni Association, Pune vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 64/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.64/Pun/2024 St. Mira’S College Alumni Vs. Cit (Exemption), Pune. Association, 6, Koregaon Park Road, Pune- 411001. Pan : Abcts2932E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing 13.06.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement 24.06.2024 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.11.2023 Passed By Ld Cit, Exemption, Pune [‘Ld. Cit(E), Pune’] Rejecting The Application For Registration U/S 12A(1)(Ac)(Iii) Of The It Act. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Ld Cit Exemption Erred In Law & On Facts In Rejection Of Application For Registration U/S 12A(1)(Ac)(Iii) Without Considering The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Ld Cit Exemption Erred In Law & On Facts In Rejecting Application For Registration U/S 12A(1)(Ac)(Iii) & Cancelling Provisional Registration Granted On 04/04/2022 Without Serving Proper Notice Of Hearing Either Physically Or Through The Registered Mail Id. The Appellant Prays For Opportunity So As To Explain Its Case.

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

registration filed by the assessee on merit. Ld. CIT(E), Pune shall decide the appeal as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard 5 to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notice issued by ld. CIT(E), Pune and submit

Sujata Suresh Nikam, Kalamboli Panvel vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -5 Panvel, Panvel

ITA 474/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.474/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Sujata Suresh Nikam, V The Income Tax Officer, Kl 4/10/3, Sector 4E, S Ward-5, Panvel. Kalamboli, Maharashtra – 410218. Pan: Abspn5521A Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajendra Kadrekar – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 27.06.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) – Nfac Has Erred In Confirming Order Imposing Penalty U/S 271B Of The Act Passed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Panvel. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Has Failed To Consider The Sujata Suresh Nikam [A]

Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 271B

without discussing each and every ground and merits of the case and merely dismissed for non-compliance. Hence, ld.AR requested for one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Submission of ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) : 3. The ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer

Shaikh Ayub Shaikh Mahebub Qureshi, Parbhani vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Parbhani

ITA 396/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.396/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shaikh Ayub Shaikh Mahebub V The Income Tax Officer, Qureshi, S Ward, Parbhani. Khureshi Traders, Khureshi Mohala, Purna, Parbhani, Maharashtra – 431511. Pan: Bkjpk1916R Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Mrs. M.N.Kulkarani – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 18/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 04.01.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Cit(A) Has Erred In Dismissing Appellant’S Appeal Alleging ‘Unexplained Cash Deposit In The Bank Account' In Para 5.2. Appellant Prays For Allowing Assessee'S Appeal Cancelling Addition Made By Assessing Officer As Issue Before Cit[A] Is Income Assessed Estimating Profit. Shaik Ayub Shaikh Mahebub Qureshi [A]

Section 234Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

merits of the case 2 Shaik Ayub Shaikh Mahebub Qureshi [A] and merely dismissed for non-compliance. Hence, ld.AR requested for one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Submission of ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) : 3. The ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer

Duddu Prasad, Vizianagaram vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Vizianagaram

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

ITA 204/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.204/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Duddu Prasad Vs. Income Tax Officer C/O Prasad Traders Ward-2 Gold Star Junction Vizianagaram Jammadevipeta Vizianagaram [Pan : Ascpp2269E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

confirming the addition made by the AO u/s 69A of the Act towards unexplained cash deposits during demonetization period without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee to controvert the findings of the revenue authorities. Hence, prayed for an opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT ... contention of the Ld.AR is that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to substantiate his claim with evidences and prayed for an opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A) in the interest of justice. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and in order

Samar Biri Factory, Siliguri vs. A.O., Assessment Unit, Bengaluru

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

ITA 582/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 582/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Samar Biri Factory Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit Aurobindopally Vs Siliguri - 734006 [Pan : Aaofs7941N] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sujit Basu & Rajib Mukherjee, Advocate Revenue By : Shri G. Ajay Robin Singh, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/06/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 19/02/2024, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds Of Appeal But The Main Contention Of The Assessee Is That On Account Of The Death Of The Key Person Of The Assessee Firm, No One Could Appear Before The Ld. Assessing Officer And, Thereafter When The Appeal Was Filed Before The Ld. Cit(A), The Same Was Dismissed On Account Of Delay In Filing The Appeal. It Was Prayed That Since High Pitched Assessment Has Been Made In The Case Of Assessee By The Ld. Assessing Officer & Assessee Had No Opportunity To Furnish The Details, The Issues On Merits May Be Restored To The File Of The Ld. Assessing Officer For De Novo Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Sujit Basu & Rajib Mukherjee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Ajay Robin Singh, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 69C

bonafide cause and furnish the details in support of its grounds. Ld. Assessing Officer should ensure that the assessee is provided with reasonable opportunity of being heard. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 24th June

Md. Hakimuddin., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Jalpaiguri

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1160/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 148Section 148ASection 151

passed the assessment order dated 28.03.2022 allowing only one day time to respond against SCN dated 23-03-2022 without allowing sufficient opportunity of being heard, thus violates the principle of natural justice. (8) That the appellant craves to add or amend any ground of appeal on or before

Md. Hakimuddin, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward. -1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1159/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 148Section 148ASection 151

passed the assessment order dated 28.03.2022 allowing only one day time to respond against SCN dated 23-03-2022 without allowing sufficient opportunity of being heard, thus violates the principle of natural justice. (8) That the appellant craves to add or amend any ground of appeal on or before