← 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

Anil Rajaram Buchde, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Pune

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

ITA 271/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Pune11 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.271/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Anil Rajaram Buchde, V The Assistant Ap Marunji, S.No.32, Tal. S Commissioner Of Income Mulshi, Near Kirti Classique, Tax, Circle-2, Pune. Pune – 411057. Pan: Bhkpb4666F Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement /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(Appeals)[Nfac] Dated 19.12.2023 For The A.Y.2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions & Scheme Of The Act, It Be Held That The Order Passed By First Appellate Authority, Without Providing Any Opportunity Of Being Heard, Is In Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice & Also In Violation Of The Express Directions Issued By The Hon'Ble Income-Tax Anil Rajaram Buchde [A]

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250(6)

provisions and scheme of the Act, it be held that the order passed by First Appellate Authority, without providing any opportunity of being heard, is in violation of principles of natural justice and also in violation of the express directions issued by the Hon'ble Income-tax Anil Rajaram Buchde

Vasundhara Pandit Trust, Pune vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 242/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Jun 2024

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 12A

after affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. LD CIT(E), Pune shall pass order as per fact & law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee trust & after considering the documents furnished by the assessee. The assessee trust is also hereby directed to submit

Infotek Netalia Ltd, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle-11, Pune

ITA 1004/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1004/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Infotek Netalia Ltd., V The Acit, Commerzone, I T Park, S Circle-11, Pune. Yerawada, Pune – 411004. Pan: Aabci2205B Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Mr.Abhineet P For Prateek Jha – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 10/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2024 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 19.07.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Erred In Deciding The Appeal Of The Assessee Ex-Parte Without Granting The Assessee Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard. 2. The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Erred In Passing The Appellate Order Entirely Based On The Observations Of The Ld Ao & Without Appreciating That The Business Of The Assessee Company Was Closed & There Was No Employee To Handle The Income Tax Matters. Infotek Netalia Ltd., [A]

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

appeal : “1. The Ld CIT(A), NFAC, erred in deciding the appeal of the assessee ex-parte without granting the assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard. 2. The Ld CIT(A), NFAC, erred in passing the Appellate Order entirely based on the observations of the Ld AO and without appreciating ... 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

Bezawada Narayanamurthy, Tirupathi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1), Tirupathi

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

ITA 358/HYD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.358/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Bezawada Vs. Income Tax Officer Narayanamurthy Ward 1(1) Tirupathi Tirupati Pan:Aespn6071N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 11/06/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)

order of the learned CIT (A) and since the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is ex-parte, to give one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the issue has been set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to reconsider the issue

M/S. Philips India Limited (Successor to Erstwhile Philips Software Centre Pvt. Ltd.), Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T.(Transfer Pricing) - 2, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 33/KOL/2023[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jun 2024AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 32 & 33/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Philips India Limited Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax 3Rd Floor, Tower A Vs (Transfer Pricing-Ii), Bangalore [Presently Deputy Dlf Park, 08 Block Af Commissioner/Assistant Major Arterial Road Commissioner Of Income-Tax New Town Transfer Pricing 2, Kolkata Kolkata - 700156 [Pan : Aabcp9487A] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ketan K. Ved, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Even Dt. 15/11/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. The Sole Issue Raised In Both The Appeals Is Relating To The Maintainability Of The Appeals Before The Ld. Cit(A) Against The Rectification Orders Passed By The Transfer Pricing Officer (In Short “Tpo”) U/S 154 R.W. Sub-Section (5) To Section 92Ca Of The Act. The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Impugned Orders Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee Holding That As Per The Provisions Of Section 246A Of The Act, Order U/S 92Ca Or Its Rectification Order U/S 154 Of The Act Passed By The Tpo Is 2

For Appellant: Shri Ketan K. Ved, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R
Section 154Section 246ASection 250Section 92C

collector] of its intention so to do and has allowed the assessee 65[or the deductor] 66[or the collector] a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (4) Where an amendment is made under this section, an order shall be passed in writing by the income-tax authority concerned

M/S. Philips India Limited (Successor to Erstwhile Philips Software Centre Pvt. Ltd.), Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T. (Transfer Pricing) - 2, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 32/KOL/2023[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jun 2024AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 32 & 33/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Philips India Limited Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax 3Rd Floor, Tower A Vs (Transfer Pricing-Ii), Bangalore [Presently Deputy Dlf Park, 08 Block Af Commissioner/Assistant Major Arterial Road Commissioner Of Income-Tax New Town Transfer Pricing 2, Kolkata Kolkata - 700156 [Pan : Aabcp9487A] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ketan K. Ved, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Even Dt. 15/11/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. The Sole Issue Raised In Both The Appeals Is Relating To The Maintainability Of The Appeals Before The Ld. Cit(A) Against The Rectification Orders Passed By The Transfer Pricing Officer (In Short “Tpo”) U/S 154 R.W. Sub-Section (5) To Section 92Ca Of The Act. The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Impugned Orders Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee Holding That As Per The Provisions Of Section 246A Of The Act, Order U/S 92Ca Or Its Rectification Order U/S 154 Of The Act Passed By The Tpo Is 2

For Appellant: Shri Ketan K. Ved, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R
Section 154Section 246ASection 250Section 92C

collector] of its intention so to do and has allowed the assessee 65[or the deductor] 66[or the collector] a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (4) Where an amendment is made under this section, an order shall be passed in writing by the income-tax authority concerned

C.P. Ispat(Unit 2) Pvt., Kolkata vs. ITO, Cir-3(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1150/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Kantilal Surti, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

order of the AO, which has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), is hereby set aside with the direction that a reasonable opportunity of being heard would be provided to the assessee and, thereafter, the assessment shall be framed de novo. The assessee shall submit required evidence before

Ramji Lal, Jhunjhunu vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(5), Jaipur

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

ITA 655/JPR/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jun 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Saurav Harsh (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Chaudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(Appeals) grossly erred in passing ex-parte order without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee appellant. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the ld. Lower authorities grossly erred in making addition ... assessee prayed that the Id. CIT(A) has passed the ex-parte order and the assessee was not provided adequate opportunity of being heard. Thus, the assessee may be provided one more opportunity to advance his arguments/submissions before the ld. CIT(A) in the interest of equity and justice

Mr. Sonappa Srirama, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 647/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedr Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Sonnappa Srirama, Vs. Ito, No.23, Ground Floor, 8Th Cross, Ward – 4(2)(3), Kaggadaspura, C. V. Raman Nagar Post, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 093. Pan : Cyjps 8049 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Gopi Krishna, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 11.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Gopi Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 115BSection 250Section 69A

view the principles of natural justice, in this particular scenario, I am of the view that the appellant needs to be given an opportunity of being heard before the AO before finalizing the addition made in the assessment order. Hence, the AO is directed to accord one opportunity

ACIT-3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Gentex Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 196/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Parwani, Sr. DR

assessee against the service income and allow the same in accordance with law. Needless to say that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is ordered accordingly. Ground No.3 of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. 12. In result appeal of the revenue is partly

Surendra Rameshwardas Gadodia, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, the addition of total amount of Rs

ITA 4855/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R Singh – Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Dinesh R Chourasia Sr. AR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

4855/MUM.2023 SURENDRA R. GADODIA 7. 4. The learned CIT (A) NFAC erred in passing the ex-parte order without providing proper opportunity of being heard, since no SMS of notice served etc. was sent.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee in individual capacity filed

Vilas Ramesh Ambekar, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)

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

ITA 4765/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Vilas Ramesh Ambekar Commissioner Of Income Tax 20-973, Mhb Colony, (Appeals) S C Raheja Marg, Mahim, National Faceless Appeal Centre Vs. Mumbai-400 016 (Nfac) North Block, Delhi-110 001

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 264Section 68

mode. 2. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in passing the Order u/s 250 of Income Tax Act,1961 without giving the proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant to represent his case and simply dismissing the following grounds before him: a) The Ld. AO has erred

Odeon Builders Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 19(1), Delhi

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

ITA 286/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Odeon Builders Private Vs. Acit Limited Circle – 19 (1) M-116, 2Nd Floor, Connaught Delhi Place, Central, Delhi-110001 Pan No.Aaaco0155H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Suresh Gupta, Ca Respondent By Sh.M. G. Joseph Gangte, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 11/06/2024 Order Per Sudhir Kumar, Jm:

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 271Section 271BSection 44Section 44A

order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be made unless the assessee has been heard, or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.” [(2) No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be made- (a) by the Income-tax Officer, where the penalty exceeds ten thousand

Tdi Infrastructure Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 76(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3398/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royi.T.A. Nos. 3398 & 3417/Del/2023 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) Tdi Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Dcit 11, Vandana Building, Circle – 76(1) Upper Ground Floor, New Delhi Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110 001 Pan : Aaaci 5799 P (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. D.R
Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 263

Delhi High Court as above and to pass a reasoned order. The Learned AR is further directed to grant an opportunity of being heard to the assessee while determining the quantum of default and interest payable thereon against the assessee and to pass the orders accordingly. 7. In the result

Meghdhanush Enterprise LLP, Usmanpura vs. CIT(Appeals), NFAC

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

ITA 134/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2017-18 Meghdhanush Enterprise Llp The Cit(Appeals)/ 7, Shri Vidhyanagar Co-Op. Hou. Vs Nfac, Delhi Soc. Opp. Municipal Garden Usmanpura – 380 015 (Gujarat) Pan: Aaufm 8363 Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mukesh Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

view that the principles of natural justice require no person should be condemned unheard. This principles mandate that an opportunity of being heard must be given to the assessee before any adverse order is passed, especially under the faceless appeal regime. 6.1. In the present case, the Ld.CIT

Surat Young Muslim Graduates Association, Surat vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-2, Exemp., Ahmedabad

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

ITA 920/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Esmayeel Saherwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154

application was made and passed an order under section 154 of the Act disallowing the exemption claimed by the assessee, without providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the order of CPC, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) dismissed ... Asst. Year : 2018-19 Further, the order under section 154 of the Act was passed by the CPC without granting the assessee an opportunity of being heard, which is a violation of the principles of natural justice. 6.1. The Ld.CIT(A) in his order has commented on the procedural part

Pmr Warehousing, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-11(1), Hydrabad

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

ITA 356/HYD/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Jun 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.356/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Pmr Wardehousing Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 11(1) Pan:Aaufp6369H Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Vinod, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 10/06/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P. Vinod, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271ASection 68

Similar additions were also made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 on verification of the ledger accounts of both the companies. Since sufficient opportunity of being heard has been provided to the assessee by issuing chow cause notice on 19.4.2021 for the above additions in response to which the assessee

Sharad Mathur, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 12(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 332/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.331 & 332/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2019-20 & 2021-22) Shri Sharad Mathur Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 12(2) Pan:Aogpm3520B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri B.Satyanarayana Murthy,Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: /06/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri B.Satyanarayana Murthy,CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 139(1)Section 154Section 90Section 91

direction to allow the FTC of Rs. 1,17, 02,466/- after due verification. Needless to say, the Assessing Officer shall give due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and Page 6 of 7 ITA Nos 331 and 332 of 2024 Sharad Mathur decide the issue as per fact

Meena Kovoor, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 223/HYD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.223/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Meena Kovoor Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 4(1) Pan:Blhpk5744G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 10/06/2024

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 156Section 50

replied to the said notices over email and submitted reply in physical copies on 07-12-2018. However, the AO has not given opportunity of being heard to the aggrieved assessee and passed order u/s 144 and determined liability of 1.75 crs and issued demand notice u/s 156. The aggrieved

Sri Sai Educational Society, Mahabubnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mahabubnagar

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

ITA 101/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.101/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) Sri Sai Educational Society, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-1, Mahbubnagar. Mahbubnagar, Telangana. Pan: Aafas6773C (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/06/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/06/2024 आदेश/Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. :- This Appeal Is Filed By Sri Sai Educational Society (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Addl/Jcit (A)-10 Mumbai (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 04.01.2024 For The Ay 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds : “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of [Income Tax (Appeals) Is Against The Law, Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of Case. 2. The Learned Additional Commissioner Erred In Confirming The Intimation U/S 143(1) In Which The Gross Receipts Of Rs.4,27,15,832/- Are Treated As Total Income Of The Assessee. 3. The Learned Additional Commissioner Ought To Have Appreciated That The Assessee Filed Itr-7,Inadvertently & Offered The Total

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 12ASection 139Section 139(9)Section 143(1)

income to the extent the same are allowable under the Act. Needless to say, the Ld. AO shall grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before finalising the assessment. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, the appeal