← 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

Philomena Paul Fernandesv, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessement Centre (ITO Ward 22(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1604/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year :2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri H.M.Bhatt
Section 139Section 147Section 156Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

aside the order passed by CIT(A) and restore the same to his for adjudicating the issues on merits. After affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the AO may take appropriate decision in accordance with law. 4 Assessment Year : 2017-18 6. In the result, the appeal

Radiant Cement Company Private Limited, Kala Amb, Sirmour vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO, Nahan, Sirmour

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 186/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 186/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Radiant Cement Company Private Vs. The Ito, Limited, बनाम Nahan, Kala Amb, Sirmour Sirmour "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacr8765J अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr.DR

Income Tax Act clearly says that ‘The assessee shall, except where the assessment is made under section 144, be given an opportunity of being heard in respect of any material gathered on the basis of any inquiry under sub-section (2) [or any audit under sub-section (2A)] and proposed

Sushil Balasaheb Gondhale, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 14(2), Pune

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

ITA 454/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.454/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sushil Balasaheb Gondhale, Vs. Ito, Ward-14(2), Pune. 49/3, Triveni Nagar Housing Society, Opp. Vaibhav Theatre, Hadapsar, Pune- 411028. Pan : Asppg5370A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 11.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.06.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.12.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Lower Authorities Erred In Passing Ex-Parte Order & Erred In Deciding The Issue Only On The Basis Of Material Available With Them, This Action Is Being Violative Of Principal Of Natural Justice. Your Appellant Prays For Granting Opportunity Of Hearing Before Lower Authorities.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC shall pass the order as per fact & law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to 5 respond to the notice issued by ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and submit

Padmanaba Reddy Metukuru, Nellore vs. ITO., Ward-1, Nellore

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

ITA 107/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 250Section 250(6)

adjournments and the learned CIT(A) to take a fresh look at the matter, after affording a Page 3 of 5 reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We order accordingly. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

M/S Salputri Commerce Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-14(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 310/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra]

adjudicating afresh to pass a speaking order after considering the submission made by the assessee for which reasonable opportunity of being heard should be provided. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and file necessary documents in support of its grounds of appeal and should not take any further

Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 161/KOL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 160 & 161/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), 9/12, Lal Bazar Street Vs Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcb2610B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R & Saurav Gupta, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Instant Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”). Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 29/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act & Ita No. 161/Kol/2023, Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 28/11/2023, Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act, For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds In Both These Appeals, But The Effective Issue Raised In Ita No. 161/Kol/2024 Is Against The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act For Unexplained Share Capital Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) & In Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Addition Made

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R and Saurav Gupta, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

back to the file of the Assessing Officer for making assessment de-novo vide order in ITA No. 1701/Kol/2016 dated: 13.11.2019 after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee with the direction to the Assessing Officer to examine genuineness and source of share capital in respect of all shareholders

Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 160/KOL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 160 & 161/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), 9/12, Lal Bazar Street Vs Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcb2610B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R & Saurav Gupta, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Instant Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”). Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 29/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act & Ita No. 161/Kol/2023, Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 28/11/2023, Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act, For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds In Both These Appeals, But The Effective Issue Raised In Ita No. 161/Kol/2024 Is Against The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act For Unexplained Share Capital Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) & In Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Addition Made

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R and Saurav Gupta, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

back to the file of the Assessing Officer for making assessment de-novo vide order in ITA No. 1701/Kol/2016 dated: 13.11.2019 after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee with the direction to the Assessing Officer to examine genuineness and source of share capital in respect of all shareholders

M/S. Ganan Mercantile Private Limited., Chennai vs. ITO, Ward-8(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 931/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 35A

order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside to the Ld. AO and he is directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, ensure that communication is sent at the correct address/e-mail ID and make the assessment order de novo. The assessee is directed

Maa Chintpoorni Tie-Up Private Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O, Ward-1(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 541/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Himadri Mukhopadhyay, Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

disposal of the grounds taken by the assessee by passing a speaking order. Needless to say, that assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission it wants to make in support of its grounds of appeal. Accordingly, all the grounds taken

Maa Chintpoorni Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-1(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 540/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Himadri Mukhopadhyay, Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

disposal of the grounds taken by the assessee by passing a speaking order. Needless to say, that assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission it wants to make in support of its grounds of appeal. Accordingly, all the grounds taken

ACIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Mediacom Communications Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 68/MUM/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Acit 2(2)(1) Vs. Mediacom Room No. 545, 5 Th Floor Communications Private Aayakar Bhavan, Limited, 349 Business M.K. Road, Point, Western Express Maharashtra - 400020 Highway Andheri Eeast Maharashtra – 400059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcm6252N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Smiti Samant
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 41(1)

with respect to the additions made in the assessment order being erroneous 2. This ground is raised in relation to non-granting of opportunity of being heard. 3. Relates to additions made u/s 41(1) of the Act amounting to Rs.15,51,41,639/- 4. Relates to additions made

The Manjri Stud Farm Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax-Circle 2(2)(1) - Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 445/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 32

ground No. 2 raised before us after taking into consideration submissions made by the assessee. Needless to say, that assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission in support of its claim. We also direct the assessee to be diligent in attending the hearings fixed

Vishwesh Venkatraman, Norway and Uk vs. ITO (It) 4(3)(1), Air India Building Mumbai

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

ITA 1515/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: S/Shri Harshavardhana Datar / Amit NegandhiFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 151Section 234CSection 3Section 69

directed to verify the evidences furnished by the assessee and decide the issue afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 13. The other issues raised in the grounds of appeal are left open. 14. In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Sanjay Gandhi Nagar Rahivasi Sanghatna, Malad (East) vs. CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai, Cumballa Hill

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

ITA 1090/MUM/2024[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2024-2025

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

resubmitted by the assessee under the correct clause and decide regularizing the registration in accordance with law after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to resubmit Form 10AB under correct sub-clause of section 12A(1)(ac) and cooperate with the proceedings

Mitesh Rameshbhai Patel, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 4451/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(C)

case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in passing the ex-parte order, without granting a sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant 2.1 The Ld. CIT (A) also failed to ensure the Service of Notices issued as in para

Convonix Systems Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 15(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4061/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharyconvonix Systems Private Vs. Assistant Commissioner Limited, 15Th Floor, Urmi Of Income Tax, Circle Estate, 95, Ganpatrao 15(1)(2), 4Th Floor, Kadam Marg, Delisle Road Aayakar Bhavan, S.O. Mumbai, Maharishi Karve Road, Maharashtra – 400013 Mumbai – 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccc5795P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Pratik Shah Respondent By : H.M. Bhatt Date Of Hearing 22.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac For A.Y. 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Passed By The Ld. Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Tax ("Ld. Ao") Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Assessing The Income Of The Appellant At Inr 18,07,08,220/-Instead Of Returned Income Of Inr 17,15,15,710/- & The Demand Raised Thereon On The Appellant Is Invalid & Bad In Law, The Appellant Prays That The Addition Made By The Ld. Ao Be Deleted 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals ['1D. Cit(A)'] Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Ld. Ao In Making An Adhoc Disallowance Of 50% In Relation To The Shared Service Expenses Amounting To Inr 91,92,505/-.

For Appellant: Pratik ShahFor Respondent: H.M. Bhatt
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270A

case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the Ld. AO, without providing the Appellant with an opportunity of being heard. The Appellant prays that the order passed by the Id. CIT(A) is in violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore

DCIT 3(4), Mumbai vs. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2477/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: S/Shri Porus F.Kaka & Manish KanthFor Respondent: Ms.Dhivya Ruth J, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

been considered properly, we are inclined to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Assessing Officer must examine all relevant facts to find out the exact nature of the advances made ... Hotel Holdings Ltd. (supra) and any other case laws which may be cited before him. The assessee must be afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard. Ground is allowed for statistical purposes.” 19. Respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate Bench (supra), we direct accordingly. This ground is allowed

Tata Consultance Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Ltu-1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2413/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: S/Shri Porus F.Kaka & Manish KanthFor Respondent: Ms.Dhivya Ruth J, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

been considered properly, we are inclined to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Assessing Officer must examine all relevant facts to find out the exact nature of the advances made ... Hotel Holdings Ltd. (supra) and any other case laws which may be cited before him. The assessee must be afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard. Ground is allowed for statistical purposes.” 19. Respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate Bench (supra), we direct accordingly. This ground is allowed

Imamia Charitable Trust, Aligarh vs. CIT Exemption Lucknow, Lucknow

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

ITA 933/DEL/2024[AY 2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2024

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Mr. Shzaidi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Dhami, CIT-DR

summarily rejected the application of the assessee. We hold that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue if an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, hence, the matter is being referred to the ld. CIT(E) to issue notices to the valid registered address and on the registered

Vlcc Personal Care Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-25(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 847/DEL/2024[10000]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2024

Bench: Him & Also Not Decided The Issue On Merit. Both The Counsels Agreed With The Above Facts On Record & At The Same

Section 154

inclined to remit this issue back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue denovo after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 21st June, 2024. (MADHUMITA