← 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Applabs Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (Now Merged With M/S Computer Science India Pvt. Ltd.), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

ITA 1805/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)

same to the file of Ld.CIT(A) with a direction for fresh consideration of the matter in accordance with law, by giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. These grounds are accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 5. The Ld. AR while objecting the adjudication ... same to the file of Ld.CIT(A) with a direction for fresh consideration of the matter in accordance with law, by giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. These grounds are accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Computer Sciences Corporation India Private Limited (Previously Known As Applabs Technologies Private Limited), Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

ITA 1793/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)

same to the file of Ld.CIT(A) with a direction for fresh consideration of the matter in accordance with law, by giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. These grounds are accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 5. The Ld. AR while objecting the adjudication ... same to the file of Ld.CIT(A) with a direction for fresh consideration of the matter in accordance with law, by giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. These grounds are accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Akbar Pasha Khadri Sayad, Nuzvid vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Vijayawada

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

ITA 38/VIZ/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.38/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14) Akbar Pasha Khadri Sayad Vs. Income Tax Officer 1-146, Main Road Ward-3(1) Boravancha Vijayawada Nuzvid [Pan : Ebqps5611] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: None (Shri K.Siva RamFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 56Section 69A

contention of the Ld.AR is that the assessee was not given sufficient time 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 ... No.38/Viz/2024, A.Y.2013-14 Akbar Pasha Khadri Sayad, Eluru the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to afford an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to adhere to the notices issued and cooperate with the revenue authorities during the proceedings

Nagarama Manohar Tenneti, Vizianagaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Vizianagaram

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

ITA 33/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.33/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Nagarama Manohar Tenneti Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.4/1/12 Ward-2 Dwaraka Nagar Vizianagaram Baha Metta, Vizianagaram [Pan : Afbpt7442P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

sufficient time and opportunity to substantiate his claim with evidences and to controvert the findings of the revenue authorities. Hence, prayed for an opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A) in the interest of justice. 6. Per contra, the Ld.DR submitted that the assessee was given sufficient opportunities ... contention of the Ld.AR is that the assessee was not given sufficient time to substantiate his claim with evidences and prayed for an opportunity of being heard before the 4 I.T.A. No.33/Viz/2024, A.Y.2017-18 Nagarama Manohar, Vijayawada Ld.CIT(A) in the interest of justice. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts

Attoonoori Venkata Reddy, Konduru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Vijayawada

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

ITA 32/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.32/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2017-18) Attoonoori Venkata Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer 2-105/B Ward-3(1) A Konduru, Ntr District Vijayawada [Pan : Bropa9686G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.Siva Ram Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 144Section 69A

dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte for non response for the reasons beyond the control of the assessee, without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard. He, therefore, pleaded to afford an opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A) in the interest of justice. 7. Per contra ... contention of the Ld.AR is that the assessee was not given sufficient time 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

Srinivasa Rao Sadam, Vijayawada vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -3(5), Vijayawada

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

ITA 190/VIZ/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.190/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2015-16) Srinivas Rao Sadam Vs. Income Tax Officer 78-5-39, Kunda Vari Ward-3(5) Kandrikapadamara Bazar Vijayawada Zp High School Road Vijayawada [Pan : Bhqps9041B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 250(4)

that the cash deposits made by the assessee were sourced from legitimate income. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee was not afforded opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A) to explain the sources for the cash deposits made. The Ld.AR further submitted that the addition made ... upheld by the Ld.CIT(A) against the principles of natural justice. He, therefore, pleaded to afford an opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A) to substantiate his claim in the interest of justice. 6. Per contra, the Ld.DR submitted that as evident from the orders of the revenue authorities

Ganesh Babu Muppavarapu Nirmala Laxmi, Vijayawada vs. CIT(Appeals), Delhi

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

ITA 151/VIZ/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Jun 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.151/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2014-15) Ganesh Babu Muppavarapu Vs. Income Tax Officer Nirmala Laxmi Ward-2(4) 9-120/1, K.S.Rao Street Vijayawada Ashok Nagar Kanuru, Vijayawada [Pan : Amlpm7675A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D.L.Narasimha Rao, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 133ASection 144Section 147

Ld.AR submitted that the same was upheld by the Ld.CIT(A) against the principles of natural justice. He, therefore, pleaded to afford an opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A) to controvert the 4 I.T.A. No.151/Viz/2023, A.Y.2014-15 Ganesh Babu Muppavarapu Nirmala Laxmi, Vijayawada findings of the revenue authorities with ... returned income, which was confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A). The only contention of the Ld.AR is that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity of being heard to rebut the findings of the revenue authorities with cogent material evidences and hence, prayed for an opportunity of being heard before

Subroto Saha, Indidual, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-29(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 248/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 147Section 148Section 250

fair play the matter may be set aside to the authority below with the direction to re-examine the issue after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. On the other hand, ld. DR has not raised any objection of prayer made by AR of the assessee ... hereby set aside to the file to ld. CIT(A) with the direction to re-examine the issue afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In case the assessee has failed to appear before the ld. CIT(A) after issuance of notice in such situation

Shristi Vincom(P)Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Kolkata

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

ITA 886/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 885 & 886/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Shristi Vincom Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 10(2), 21A, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Rd. Kolkata Vs Bhowanipur Kolkata - 700025 [Pan : Aamcs3858F] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Prabhas Roy, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Even Dt. 27/06/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Issues On Merits Raised In Both These Appeals Deserve To Be Restored To The File Of The Ld. Cit(A) For The Reason That Firstly For The Appellate Proceedings For Assessment Year 2013-14, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Not Considered The Remand Report Given By The Ld. Assessing Officer Dated 12/04/2019 As A Result Of Which Various Facts In The Remand Report, Have Not Been Considered By The Ld. Cit(A) For Adjudicating The Issues & 2

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prabhas Roy, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(3)Section 250

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. 4. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 20th June

Shristi Vincom(P)Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Kolkata

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

ITA 885/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 885 & 886/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Shristi Vincom Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 10(2), 21A, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Rd. Kolkata Vs Bhowanipur Kolkata - 700025 [Pan : Aamcs3858F] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Prabhas Roy, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Even Dt. 27/06/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Issues On Merits Raised In Both These Appeals Deserve To Be Restored To The File Of The Ld. Cit(A) For The Reason That Firstly For The Appellate Proceedings For Assessment Year 2013-14, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Not Considered The Remand Report Given By The Ld. Assessing Officer Dated 12/04/2019 As A Result Of Which Various Facts In The Remand Report, Have Not Been Considered By The Ld. Cit(A) For Adjudicating The Issues & 2

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prabhas Roy, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(3)Section 250

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. 4. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 20th June

Jana Small Finance Bank Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ward-4(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 757/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, C.AFor Respondent: Shri M Harischandra Naik, CIT (DR)

appeal, Page 2 of 4 the ld. Counsel for the assessee has only pressed ground number 1.2 and prayed for an opportunity of being heard before the AO. The ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that this is the second round of litigation and in first round ... assessee may kindly be granted in the interest of justice. In nutshell, it is the grievances of the assessee that proper opportunity of being heard has not been provided by both the lower authorities. 7. The ld. DR relied upon the order

M/S Vora Financial Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 798/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble& Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year 2016-17 M/S. Vora Financial Services Private Limited, 081, 806, 8Th Floor, Elite Square, 274, Perin Nariman St.Bazar Gate, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan:Aaacv-1975-E - Appellant Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 2(3)(1), Mumbai, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020 - Respondent- Appellant By : Shri K.Gopal/Ms.Neha Praranjpe Respondent By : Ms. Rajeshwari Menon Date Of Hearing : 04/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/06/2024

For Appellant: Shri K.Gopal/Ms.Neha PraranjpeFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon
Section 14Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

afresh by duly considering the Ledger account copies and also any other information/explanations that may be furnished by the assessee. After affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the AO may take appropriate decision in accordance with the law. 4 Assessment Year 2016-17 7. In the result

Premprakash Gangaprasad Saraogi, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 34(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 692/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 250(6)

case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in passing the ex-parte order, without granting sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 2.On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming

Mrs. Saraswati K. Nair, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-17(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1038/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Mathuria, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Santosh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 154Section 41(1)

limine without considering the letter filed by the assessee seeking time to file detail and that the CIT(A) has not given proper opportunity of being heard. 2 ITA No.1038/Mum/2024 - Mrs. Saraswati K. Nair 2. The assessee is an individual and filed a return of income

Ambika Property Ventures Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 14(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1003/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: him by way of a statement of facts and the grounds of appeal [Marvel Industries Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(2), Mumbai, dated 19/07/2022, ITA No. 729/Mum/2022, Paragraph 3].

For Appellant: Shri S.M. BandiFor Respondent: Shri Raj Singh Meel
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)

passed by the CIT(A) with the directions to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh after providing the Appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Thus, Ground No. 1 raised by the Appellant is allowed. 7. During the course of hearing, the Learned Authorised Representative for the Appellant ... aside the order, dated 10/01/2024, passed by CIT(A) with the directions to be adjudicated the appeal on merits after granting Appellant opportunity of being heard, we are not inclined to deal with the same as the same have become academic in nature. All the grounds raised by the Appellant

Kurla Moonrock Chs, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 4301/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailkurla Moonrock Chs Vs. Ito 14(2)(2) 823 New Hall Road Room No. 453 Kurla West, Aaykar Bhavan. Mumbai- 400070 M.K. Road Maharashtra – 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaeck2430P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Sameer G. Dalal Respondent By : P. D. Chougule Date Of Hearing 25.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2024

For Appellant: Sameer G. DalalFor Respondent: P. D. Chougule
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249Section 249(4)Section 50

Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act"). 1.2 While doing so, the NFAC erred in not granting adequate, proper and effective opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. 1.3 It is submitted that, in the fact and circumstances of the case, and in law, the provisions of section

Vishal Sharma, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward 4(5), Gurgaon

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 44/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 254Section 44A

business in the name of Vishal Sharma and is engaged in the business of civil contractor. The assessment was framed without providing adequate opportunity of being heard. He contended that notices were not received by the assessee and before learned CIT(A) assessee had duly made submissions and the submissions ... orders of authorities below are set aside and the matter is restored to the file of AO for decision afresh, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open

Geodate Engineering S.P.A., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Tax 1(3)(1), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed and the case is remand back to DRP to decide afresh as discussed above

ITA 8770/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Delhi20 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Geodate Engineering Vs. Acit 2Nd S.P.A., 206-A, Floor, Circle Intl. Tax 1(3)(1) Ndm-1, Building Netaji, New Delhi Subhash Place, New Delhi Pan No.Aadcg7297H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate Sh. Shailesh Gupta, Ca Sh. Madhur Aggarwal, Advocate Sh. Mahir Aggarwal, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Abhishek Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 03/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/06/2024 Order Per Sudhir Kumar, Jm:

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 9

been recorded with pre-determined and preconceived notions and without considering the submissions/evidences/material produced on record and also without providing fair and proper opportunity of being heard, hence such findings are vitiated and deserves to be deleted. 2. That the learned AO/DRP has grossly erred in making the impugned treatment ... without providing to the assessee, a fair and proper and meaningful opportunity of being heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and thus such, the addition so made is vitiated both on fact and in law. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the assessee filed

Shivarth General Trading LLP, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 633/AHD/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 273BSection 274Section 69A

following Ground of Appeal: 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in passing ex-Parte Order without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant hence the same should be quashed. 4 I.T.A No. 633/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2020‐21 Page No Shivarth General Trading

M/S. Alang Metal Exim Pvt. Limited., Bhavnagar vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Bhavnagar

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

ITA 2329/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S.Alang Metal Exim Pvt.Ltd. The Acit Shop No.3, Arpan Flat Vs Circle-1 Shishuvihar Circle, Bhavnagar Bhavnagar – 364 001 (Gujarat) Pan:Aaeca 9651 Q ….. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Adv. & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13 /06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokarthis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20-9-2018 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–6, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)”] In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.7,00,00,000/- Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) & Disallowance Of Rs.3,30,000/- Out Of Loading & Unloading Charges Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”) In His Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. M/S.Alang Metal Exim Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Acit Asst. Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

issued on 20.03.2015 and the deadline to produce the evidence was 24.03.2015 and hence this does not seem to be a proper opportunity of being heard offered to the appellant. 3. Further we request your good honour to consider the following judgement as cited by the ITAT Delhi ... additional evidence submitted by the assessee in case of Ground Nos. 1 to 3. The Ld.CIT(A) is directed to provide a fair opportunity of being heard to the assessee and to pass a reasoned order considering all the evidences on record. 8. Ground Nos. 5 and 6 are general