← 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

Rahul Ramesh Shelar, Thane vs. ACIT Circle-2, Kalyan

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

ITA 459/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Rahul Ramesh Shelar Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Pitru Chhaya Sadan, Income Tax, Circle 2 Near Railway Station, Ward No.6, 2Nd Floor, Mohan Plaza Vangani West, Thane, Wayle Nagar, Khadakpada Maharashtra – 421503 Kalyan (W), Mumbai - 421301 Pan : Asbps3128C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. Shah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 250Section 44A

denovo meritorious adjudication of the grounds of appeal taken before him. Needless to say that assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard to represent his case. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 1 and 2 raised by the assessee before us are allowed for statistical purpose. 9. In the result, appeal filed

Jeetmal Taparia Memorial Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 418/MUM/2024[418]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Jeetmal Taparia Memorial Trust Cit(Exemption) 601, 6Th Floor, 612 Raheja Chambers, F J Road, Nariman Point, Cumballa Hill Mtnl Te Building, Vs. Mumbai-400 021 Pedder Road, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400 026 Pan/Gir No. Aaatj 0333P (Appellant) : (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 07.05.2024
Section 80GSection 80G(5)

maintainable. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) was not justified in rejecting the application for approval u/s. 80G without affording an opportunity of being heard. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) ought to have decided the matter of approval u/s. 80G on merits of the case

Devraj Tyagi, Ghaziabad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 3582/DEL/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 69

aside and the matter is restored to the file of learned CIT(A) for decision afresh on merit, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

Santosh Khunteta, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-29(5), Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3139/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 56

corrected. Further submitted that it is not the case of the assessee that no notice was served and the assessee has availed the opportunity of being heard during the course of the assessment proceedings and the assessment order has been passed after hearing the assessee, therefore, the Ground

Comfort Nest Luxory Builders Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 6(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 2670/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2011-12]

Section 147Section 148Section 68

restored to the file of learned CIT(A) for decision afresh on merits as well as the additional ground, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Smt. Hansaben Vinodbhai Parmar Legal Heir of Late Shri Vinodbhai Motibhai Parmar, Gandhinagar vs. The ACIT/DCIT Circle, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 58/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sulabh Padshah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Kutiar, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 68

legal representative is and take all further steps in the proceeding against him. The legal representative will also be given full opportunity of being heard before an assessment is made on him in respect of the estate of the deceased. 12. Accordingly, looking into the instant facts where the assessment

Geriatric Wellness Foundation, Pune vs. CIT(Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 1346/PUN/2023[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jun 2024AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godarageriatric Wellness Foundation Cit (Exemption), Pune Lokmanya Hospital, Mitramandal Vs. 484/6, Mitramandal Colony, Parvati, Pune – 411009 Pan : Aafcg8051M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Agiwal Department By : Shri Keyur Patel, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 24-04-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-06-2024 O R D E R Per R. K. Panda, Vp :

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR
Section 12A

filing the requisite details. The CIT(Exemption) is directed to decide the issue afresh as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result

Ramakrishna Rao, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Alipurduar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 541/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

cognizance of material evidences like submission of Form No. 67 against the taxes paid in foreign country and also not provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard. We also note that the order of Ld. CIT(A) is an ex parte order dismissing the appeal of the assessee

Topmost Dealmark Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 9(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 540/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 540/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Topmost Dealmark Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 9(1), 5/1, 4Th Floor Vs Kolkata Room No. 125, Clive Row Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaect0270C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Addl. Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/06/2024 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, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 20/12/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 26 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. Affidavit Has Been Filed In Support Of The Prayer For Condonation Of Delay & The Delay Is Mainly On Account Of The Ill Health Of The Accountant Of The Assessee Concern Which Restrained Him To Look After The Regular Office Affairs & Could Not Check The Income Tax Portal From Time To Time. At A Later Stage When It Was Found That Ex-Parte Order Has Already Been Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), The Assessee Preferred Appeal Before This Tribunal. Under These Circumstances

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Addl. CIT D/R
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 35DSection 68

Assessing Officer should 4 I.T.A. No. 540/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Topmost Dealmark Pvt. Ltd. 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 12th June

Accurate Shoppers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 537/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 537/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Accurate Shoppers Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 4(3), 5/1, 4Th Floor Vs Kolkata Room No. 125, Clive Row Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaica9908Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/06/2024 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, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 30/01/2024, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company. It Declared Loss Of Rs.65,724/- In The Return Filed On 26/03/2013 For Assessment Year 2012-13. Case Of The Assessee Selected For Scrutiny & After Making Addition Of Rs.8.67 Crores, Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act Completed On 23/03/2015. Thereafter Based On Information Received From Ito, Investigation, Unit-1, Kolkata, Re- Assessment Proceedings Were Carried Out Alleging That The Income Subject To Tax Has Escaped Assessment & Notice Was Issued On 2

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT D/R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

bonafide cause and furnish the details in support of his grounds. Ld. Assessing Officer should ensure that the assessee is provided with reasonable opportunity of being heard. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 12th June

Rakesh Khan, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-50(1), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1334/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

prayed that grounds raised in the instant appeal may be restored to the ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard. 3. Per contra, ld. DR was fair enough not to oppose this request of the ld. counsel for the assessee ... fresh adjudication by passing a speaking order after considering the submission made by the assessee while doing so reasonable opportunity of being heard should be provided to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and file necessary documents in support of its grounds of appeal and should

Kalipada Saha, Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward-24(3), Hooghly.

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1191/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

required the assessee to furnish explanation, papers/documents and since despite availing sufficient opportunities, the assessee did not avail the opportunity of being heard as the AO AYs: 2010-11 to 2013-14. imposed the penalty @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded by considering the difference between the total assessed

Kalipada Saha, Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward-24(3), Hooghly.

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1190/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

required the assessee to furnish explanation, papers/documents and since despite availing sufficient opportunities, the assessee did not avail the opportunity of being heard as the AO AYs: 2010-11 to 2013-14. imposed the penalty @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded by considering the difference between the total assessed

Kalipada Saha, Hoohly vs. ITO, Ward-24(3), Hooghly.

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1189/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

required the assessee to furnish explanation, papers/documents and since despite availing sufficient opportunities, the assessee did not avail the opportunity of being heard as the AO AYs: 2010-11 to 2013-14. imposed the penalty @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded by considering the difference between the total assessed

Kalipada Saha, Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward-24(3), Hooghly

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1188/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

required the assessee to furnish explanation, papers/documents and since despite availing sufficient opportunities, the assessee did not avail the opportunity of being heard as the AO AYs: 2010-11 to 2013-14. imposed the penalty @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded by considering the difference between the total assessed

M/S Rockbed Renovators Ltd., Bhopal vs. The PCIT-1, Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 214/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Indore12 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanirockbed Renovators Ltd. Pr. Cit-1 7-A, Panjabi Bagh Raisen Road Bhopal Govindpura Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaacr7151G Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari Ar Revenue By Ms. Ila Parmar, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 10.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.06.2024

Section 143(3)Section 196CSection 263

accordingly set aside the assessment order with directions that the AO should pass assessment order de novo after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assesse. Aggrieved by the impugned order the assessee filed the present appeal. 3. Before the Tribunal the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted

Narendradevakumar Ambika, Pollachi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Pollachi

In the result the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 356/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.356/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2017-18 Narendradevakumar Ambika, Income Tax Officer, No.33, Osp Street, Odaiyakulam, Ward-1, Pollachi, Tamil Nadu-642129. Pollachi, [Pan: Blopa2062E] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri H.Yeshwanth Kumar, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri H.Yeshwanth Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri ARV Srinivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 69A

matter restored back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication de novo. Needless to say that the AO will allow reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assesse and assesse is also directed to represent his case as and when notice is issued, otherwise adverse view

Durairaj Vijay, Tondiarpet vs. ITO Non Corp. Ward6(4), Chennai

In the result the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 355/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.355/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2017-18 Durairaj Vijay Ito, Non-Corp New No.12, Old No.13/1, Varadharaja Ward-6(4)Chennai Perumal Koil Street, Tondiarpet, Chennai-81 [Pan: Aafpv9623H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.L.Janardhanan, Fca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri S.L.Janardhanan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri ARV Srinivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

cost and produce the receipt before the Ld.CIT(A) during his appellate proceedings. Needless to say that the Ld.CIT(A) will allow reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and assessee is also directed to represent his case as and when notice is issued, otherwise adverse view

Madeit Innovation Foundation, Kancheepuram vs. CIT(Exemptions), Chennai

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

ITA 162/CHNY/2024[--]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 162/Chny/2024 M/S.Madeit Innovation The Cit(Exemption), Foundation, Vs. Chennai. 3Rd Floor, New Academic Block, Iiitdm, Kancheepuram – 600 127. Pan: Aakcm 5065A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Girish Kumar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Murali, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, CIT
Section 10ASection 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

vide para 8.3 of the impugned order. Another facet of argument by ld.counsel for the assessee is that no effective or proper opportunity of being heard before passing the impugned order in violation of principles of natural justice. 4. Brief facts are that the assessee MaDeIT Innovation Foundation filed ... ld.counsel for the assessee stated that a fresh opportunity be given to the assessee to file complete details and allowing proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. When it was pointed out to the ld.counsel for the assessee that there is extension of due date for filing of Form

Incometax Officer, Tuticorin vs. Abdulrahman Viswa Abdul Salam, Tirunelveli

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

ITA 680/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.680/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Shri Abdul Rahman Viswas Abdul International Taxation Ward, Salam, No.64/114, Kalvath Nayagam Tuticorin, Tamil Nadu Street, Kadayanallur, Tenkasi Dist, Tn-627751 [Pan: Apppa9666L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. Abhishek Murali, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024

For Appellant: Mr. Abhishek Murali, CAFor Respondent: Shri ARV Srinivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

comments. The arguments of the Ld.AR qua “clarification” have been found to be bereft of any supporting evidence and merely conjectures. Adequate opportunity of being heard to an aggrieved party is a natural right and cannot be violated. Any order passed in violation of this right is liable ... view that the Ld.CIT(A) has violated the provisions of Rule-46A by not affording the assessing officer a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The undisputed facts of the case indicate that the assesse had not provided requisite details to the assessing officer compelling him to make an addition based