← 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

Jasper Industries Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 781/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Shri Manjunatha G., Hon'Bleधििाारण वर्ा आ.अपी.सं अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / / A.Y. Appellant Respondent / Ita No. M/S. Jasper Asst. Commissioner Industries Private Of Income Tax, Limited, 781/Hyd/2020 2016-17 Circle-2(1), Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan: Aaacj5760H] M/S. Jasper Dy. Commissioner Industries Private Of Income Tax, 6/Hyd/2021 2016-17 Limited, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan: Aaacj5760H]

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Subrahmanyam and Shri EV Sri Krishna, ARsFor Respondent: Shri K. Meghnath Chowhan, CIT-DR
Section 14A

Rs.1,22,85,858/- made u/s. 14A of the Act is a fresh disallowance which tantamount to enhancement of assessment which requires opportunity of being heard to the appellant. (d) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not giving any enhancement notice to the appellant before directing the Assessing Officer

Lakshman Saw, Maheshtala vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 25(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Dakshin

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

ITA 224/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 250

case has been adjudicated ex-parte in both the appeal and assessment stage. The assessee specifically mentioned about the denial of reasonable opportunity of being heard. On a query from the bench to explain the reasons behind such non-appearance 3 AY: 2017-18 Lakshman Saw before the authorities below

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Nungambakkam Chennai vs. Aircel Cellular Ltd, Anna Salai, Chennai

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

ITA 16/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.15 & 16/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. The Joint Commissioner Of Income M/S.Aircel Cellular Ltd., No.769, 5Th Floor, Tax (Osd), Chennai. Spencer Plaza, Anna Salai, Chennai. [Pan: Aaacr 5136 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 14Section 14(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

appellant submits that the addition by the Ld. A.O. has resulted in double disallowance. The assessing officer is directed to give due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and to call for the details and if submitted verify the same and accordingly give relief. In the result, ground No.3 ... tune of Rs.6,37,65,981/- has resulted in double disallowance and therefore, Ld.CIT(A) directed the AO to give opportunity of being heard to the assessee and call for details and verify the same and accordingly, gave such a relief. Since the main grievance of the Revenue is that

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Nungambakkam Chennai vs. Aircel Cellular Ltd, Anna Salai, Chennai

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

ITA 15/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.15 & 16/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. The Joint Commissioner Of Income M/S.Aircel Cellular Ltd., No.769, 5Th Floor, Tax (Osd), Chennai. Spencer Plaza, Anna Salai, Chennai. [Pan: Aaacr 5136 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 14Section 14(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

appellant submits that the addition by the Ld. A.O. has resulted in double disallowance. The assessing officer is directed to give due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and to call for the details and if submitted verify the same and accordingly give relief. In the result, ground No.3 ... tune of Rs.6,37,65,981/- has resulted in double disallowance and therefore, Ld.CIT(A) directed the AO to give opportunity of being heard to the assessee and call for details and verify the same and accordingly, gave such a relief. Since the main grievance of the Revenue is that

M/S. Vetrivel Pandian Builders, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp. Ward 14(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 12/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 144Section 69

inclined to set aside the order of CIT(A)-NFAC and direct him to pass a speaking order on merits after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In term of the above, we set aside the order of CIT(A)-NFAC but for non-appearance by assessee

Mukhundhan Gopalan, Trichy vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Trichy

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

ITA 504/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 504/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mukhundhan Gopalan, The Asst. Commissioner Of B-901, Trichy Rich 104, Vs. Income Tax, Salai Road, Woraiyur Bazaar, Circle 1(1), Trichy – 620 003. Trichy. Pan: Aagpm 1974P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Murali, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Revision Order Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madurai – 1 In Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2022-23/1050429409 (1) Dated 06.03.2023. The Assessment Was Framed By The Additional/ Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax/Income-Tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19 U/S.143(3) R.W.S.143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 19.10.2020. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is Against The Revision Order Passed By The Pcit U/S.263 Of The Act Revising The Assessment Completed By Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Act Dated 19.10.2020 Without Making Enquiry In Regard To Expenses Relatable To Exempt Income U/S.14A R.W.Rule 8D(2)(Ii) Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962 (Hereinafter The ‘Rules’). For This, Assessee Has Raised Many Grounds Which Are Argumentative & Exhaustive & Hence, Need Not Be Reproduced.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, CIT
Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

making necessary enquiries and verification with regard to the claim of the assessee as discussed above in accordance with law after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.” 4. The ld.counsel for the assessee before us pointed out from the paper-book particularly from accounts of assessee that

Sh. Arvind Singh Chauhan, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-7, Jaipur

Appeal is disposed of

ITA 291/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ld. Cit(A), Notices Are Stated To Have Been Issued By The Said

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271

consider as to whether to allow or disallow the request. All this goes to show that the assessee was not provided reasonable opportunity of being heard, before the impugned order came to be passed. Right to be heard is one of essential characters of the principles of natural justice ... assessee under the Act of being heard, has been infringed and his appeal has been dismissed without being given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 12. In the given situation, even ld. DR for the department is in agreement that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. Conclusion

Gobind Chhangomal Sajnani, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 185/JPR/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jun 2024AY 2009-10
For Respondent: Sh. Vedant Agrawal (CA)
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

with a direction to consider the facts of the issue raised in accordance with law and that too after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus, with grounds so raised by the assessee, we set aside the issue to the file of the Id. AO who will

Gobind Chhangomal Sajnani, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Jaipur

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 184/JPR/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vedant Agrawal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

with a direction to consider the facts of the issue raised in accordance with law and that too after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus, with grounds so raised by the assessee, we set aside the issue to the file of the ld. AO who will

Jananidhi Souharda Cooperative Limited, Bengaluru vs. ITO Ward 6(2)(5), Bmtc Bldg Koramangala Bengaluru

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

ITA 690/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 69A

dispute to the file of Ld. AO for fresh consideration and to decide the same in accordance with the law after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Assessee is directed to co-operate with the Proceedings before the Revenue Authorities and to file the relevant submissions/documents which

Amin Tharani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward-24(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 905/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bleamin Tharani V. Ito - Ward-24(1)(1) 1, Tharani Mansion, M.A. Road Piramal Chambers Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400058 Mumbai - 400012 Pan: Adrpt5870H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Ajay R. Singh & Shri Akshay Pawar Department Represented By : Shri Harmesh Lal

directed to decide the appeal afresh considering the merits of the case and after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to attend the Appellate Proceedings, Page No. 2 AMIN THARANI update his E-Mail ID and is further directed

Archivers Exim Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-15(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 689/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhujhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri Sunny Kachhwaha
Section 145(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the appeal order exparte without allowing adequate opportunity of being heard and ought to have considered the bonafide reasons which had precluded the appellant to participate in the appeal proceeding; 2.0 On facts and circumstances

Shri Anil Roshanlal Bafna, Mumbai vs. ACIT 27(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 635/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri V. D. ParmarFor Respondent: Shri Sunny Kachhwaha
Section 250Section 250(6)

facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld CIT(A) erred in passing ex-parte without giving adequate opportunity of being heard to appellant. 4. Without prejudice to other grounds of appeal, (i) On facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld CIT(A) erred

Ram Vasdev Bathija, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 452/MUM/2024[A Y 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri.Ashwin Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr.DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 270Section 68

erred in considering that Assessing officer passed order without issuing show cause notice and there by not giving enough opportunity of being heard before passing impugned order which clearly violated principal of natural justice, Ground 3: The CIT (A) has erred in taking in record facts that assessee has made ... Honour.” 3 Ram Vasdev Bathija, AY 2017-18 2.1. At the outset, we note that by ground no.2, assessee has contested that enough opportunity of being heard was not given to him before passing the impugned order which is in violation of principles of natural justice. In this respect

Rahul Chandrakant Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 4509/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2024AY 2014-15
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 250

various notices issued and upload responses for the submission during the assessment proceedings and appeal proceedings. The Appellant submits that an opportunity of being heard be given as a matter of natural justice. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellant submits that

Ram Awadh Sharma, Gurgaon vs. Prcit, Central-2, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4130/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. G.S. Pannu & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2014-15 Ram Awadh Sharma Vs. Pr. Cit D-153, Pinnacle Dlr, Phase- Central-2 5, Gurgaon New Delhi Pan No.Bkbps6630N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None. Respondent By Sh. P.N. Baranwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 19/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05/06/2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)

impugned order under Section 263 of the Act whereby the AO was directed to frame afresh assessment after affording assessee an opportunity of being heard. 4. The grounds raised have no substance. The appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 05.06.2024. (G.S. PANNU) JUDICIAL

M/S. Classic Citi Investments Private Limited, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune

Appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 437/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 32

land of Rs.12,58,25,274/-. The CIT (A) erred in not considering the fact that Ld AO did not provide the opportunity of being heard before suo moto replacing the cost of acquisition of land to Rs.10,55,27,112/-. The appellant prays before Your Honor to direct ... cost of acquisition of Rs.12,58,25,274/- by Ld AO on his own to Rs.10,55,27,112/- without giving any opportunity of being heard to the appellant is not justifiable. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance u/s 32 on account of deprecation of Rs.l

Shri Gayatri Sanshodhan Seva Mandal, Pune vs. CIT Exemptions, CIT Exemption Pune

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

ITA 1361/PUN/2023[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Jun 2024AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

commenced this fact is not taken into consideration by the authority while rejecting the application. The learned CIT has not given any opportunity of being heard on his plea that the activities of the trust are not genuine.” 3. The grounds are argumentative but in essence they challenge the decision

Narendra Seoomal Sabnani, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Banglore

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

ITA 180/NAG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur04 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(1)Section 80C

consider fresh evidence adduced by Narendra Seoomal Sabnani ITA no.180/Nag./2021 the assessee before us and decide the issues afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, appeal

Ifb Automotive Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 12(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 212/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 212/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ifb Automotive Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income Plot No. Ind-V, Sector-1 Vs Tax, Circle - 12(1), Kolkata East Kolkata Township Kasba Industrial Estate Kolkata - 700107 [Pan : Aabci2766H] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Swapan Kumar Bera, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 12/12/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Income Tax Department, Delhi Has Erred In Law As Well As In Facts In Confirming The Disallowance & Addition Made By The Ld. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(L), Kolkata (Assessing Officer) On Account Of Profit On Sale Of Fixed Assets Of Rs. 41,61,190/- Ignoring The Provisions Under Section 50 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law As Well As In Facts In Confirming The Disallowance & Addition Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer On Account Of 2

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Swapan Kumar Bera, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 50

I.T.A. No. 212/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 IFB Automotive Private Limited Needless to mention that the assessee shall be provided sufficient opportunity of being heard and the ld. Assessing Officer also taking into consideration our observations given supra and then decide in accordance with law. 8. In the result, appeal