← 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

Fatema Zehra (S A) Welfare Trust, Jogeshwari West vs. CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai, Cumballa Hill

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

ITA 616/MUM/2024[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2024AY 2024-2025

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble& Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year 2024-25 Fatema Zehra (S A) Welfare Trust, Jogeshwari West, C/O. Sayed Ghulam Raza Naqvi, A/102, Fatimid Apt. Behram Baug Rod, Jogeshwari West – 400 102 Pan:Aaatf-2652-F - Appellant Vs. Cit (Exemptions),Mumbai, Room No.601, 6Th Floor, Cumballa Hill Mtnl Te Building, Peddar Road, Dr.Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai – 400 026 - Respondent- Appellant By : Shri Arund Singh Respondent By : Shri Jagdish Jangid –Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/06/2024

For Appellant: Shri Arund SinghFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Jangid –CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

restore all the issues contested in this appeal to his file for examining them afresh, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 03rd June, 2024. [Justice

Worley India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commission of Income Tax 2, Mumbai

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

ITA 554/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 37(1)Section 80G

with the directions to conduct requisite enquiries along the lines discussed above and frame the order of assessment accordingly. In the process, adequate opportunity of being heard should be afforded to the assessee to file submissions, details and to furnish their explanation. Order under section 263 of Income

Chirag Balkrishna Patel, Panchmahal vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 (Previously Ward-3(1)(2) Vadodara), Godhra

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

ITA 283/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2017-18 Chirag Balkrishna Patel Income Tax Officer, 15, Adarsh Society, Vs Ward-1, Godhra Vadodara Road, (Previous, Ito, Ward-3(1)(2), Halol, 389350 Vadodra) Gujarat Pan: Butpp1753 K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jigar Adhiyaru, Ar Revenue By : Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16/05/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokarthis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31-10-2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – [National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)] (Hereinafter Referred As “Cit(A)”) Which Was Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred As “The Ao”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Jigar Adhiyaru, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 69A

proper/appropriate show cause notice is illegal and bad in law and is not sustainable as such additions have been made without giving appropriate opportunity of being heard to the appellant during the course of assessment proceeding and hence there is gross violation of natural justice and such assessment order

Society for Training and Caring, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Guntur

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

ITA 63/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.63/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Society For Training & Caring Vs. Income Tax Officer E-1, Ganapathi Homes Exemption Ward 6Th Line, Pandaripuram Guntur Guntur [Pan : Aacas9356E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri,DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)

especially under Government Grants. The Ld.CIT(A) is also not justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee ex- parte without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard. He, therefore pleaded for affording an opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A) to controvert the findings of the revenue authorities with ... that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to substantiate the donations in support of the grounds raised and therefore, pleaded for an opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A). In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the principles of natural

Sri Keerthi Projects, Guntur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income, Circle-1(1), Guntur

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

ITA 181/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.181/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Sri Keerthi Projects Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.3-20-14, Near Recruiting Office Income Tax Pattabhipuram Circle-1(1) Guntur Guntur [Pan : Abjfs1107Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 4Section 40

paid to HDB Finance Services u/s 4 I.T.A. No.181/Viz/2024, A.Y.2018-19 Sri Keerthi Projects, Guntur 40(a)(ia) of the Act, without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He, therefore, pleaded for an opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A) in the interest of justice, otherwise ... made by the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. As contended by the Ld.AR that the assessee was not given proper opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A) to controvert the findings of the revenue authorities, pleaded for an opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT

Sankaram Siram, Palakol vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Palkol

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

ITA 116/VIZ/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.116/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14) Sankaram Siram Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.2-69, Main Road Ward-1 Dagguluru Village Palakol Palakol Mandal West Godavari Dist. [Pan : Apdps3611R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

parte by sustaining the additions made by the AO of Rs.1,29,26,227/- u/s 68 of the Act without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He further submitted that the total income was wrongly computed at Rs.2,58,52,454/- in the computation sheet while ... total income assessed was only Rs.1,29,26,227/-. He, therefore, pleaded for an opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A) in the interest of justice, otherwise, the assessee would suffer great financial loss. 7. Per contra, the Ld.DR submitted that as observed from the orders of the revenue

Smt.Venturi Padmavathi L/R of Late Ramagopal Venturi, Rajahmundry vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1), Rajahmundry

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

ITA 114/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.114/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Smt.Venturi Padmavathi Vs. Income Tax Officer L/R Of Late Venturi Ramagopal Ward-2(1) D.No.78-2-16, Syamala Nagar Rajahmundry Old Somalamma Street Rajahmundry [Pan : Aixpv3542M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 147Section 270A

Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC should have appreciated the fact regarding the death of the Assessee and should have given an opportunity of being heard 5. Any other grounds that may be urged at the time of appeal. 3 I.T.A. No.114/Viz/2024, A.Y.2018-19 Smt.Venturi Padmavathi L/R of (Late Vemuri ... compliance to the notices was neither intentional nor deliberate, but due to the death of the assessee. He, therefore, pleaded for an opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A) in the interest of justice. 5. Per contra, the Ld.DR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) is justified in dismissing

Sainath Educational Society, Guntur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Guntur

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

ITA 110/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.110/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Sainath Educational Society Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.4-856/D, Perecherla (Exemption Ward) 4Th Lane, L N S Colony Guntur Medikonduru Md, Guntur [Pan : Aafas4764B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 270Section 270ASection 274

urged at the time of hearing. 4. The only contention of the Ld.AR is that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A) to controvert the findings of the AO, levying penalty of Rs.9,59,076/-. He, therefore, pleaded for an opportunity of being ... Ld.AR is that the assessee society was not given sufficient opportunity to controvert the findings of the revenue authorities and pleaded for an opportunity of being heard before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and in order

Venkata Satya Suryanarayana Raju, Kakinada vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 109/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.109/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Venkata Satya Suryanarayana Raju Vs. Nfac Prop. M.S.N.Metals Delhi Flat No.501, Surya Pride Homes Back Side Of Collector Bunglo, Madhav Nagar [Pan : Ahzpm7335C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Suthar, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

parte by sustaining the additions made by the AO of Rs.11,45,35,650/- u/s 69A of the Act without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He, therefore, pleaded for an opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A) in the interest of justice, otherwise, the assessee ... Ld.CIT(A). As contended by the 4 I.T.A. No.109/Viz/2024, A.Y.2017-18 Venkata Satya Suryanarayana Raju, Kakinada Ld.AR that the assessee was not given proper opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A) to controvert the findings of the revenue authorities and therefore pleaded for an opportunity of being heard before

Sri Sai Balaji Transport, Kakinada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kakinada

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

ITA 108/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.108/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Sri Sai Balaji Transport Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.41-2-22/8, Koppula Street Ward-1 Budampet Kakinada Kakinada [Pan : Acrfs3673C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 249(3)Section 3Section 5

Ld.CIT(A) ought to have informed the defect to the assessee and given 4 I.T.A. No.108/Viz/2024, A.Y.2017-18 Sri Sai Balaji Transport, Kakinada an opportunity of being heard. He, therefore, pleaded for an opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A) in the interest of justice, otherwise, the assessee would suffer ... time barred on the ground that the assessee failed to explain the delay in filing appeal with sufficient cause and pleaded 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

Ashit Kumar Deb, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-25(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 283/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble & Shri Rakesh Mishra, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 283/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ashit Kumar Deb Income Tax Officer, Ward-25(2), 2/240 Sree Colony Vs Kolkata Regent Estate Baghajatin Kolkata - 700092 [Pan : Aqcpd6452F] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Arvind Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Monalisha Pal Mukherjee, Jcit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/05/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma: 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. 02/09/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Time Of Hearing The Registry Has Informed That The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Time Barred By 104 Days. The Assessee Prayed For Condonation Of The Delay. The Reasons Are Placed On Record. We, After Perusing The Same As Well As Material Available On Record Find Merit In The Reasonable Cause Stated By The Assessee, Which Prevented Him To File The Appeal Within The 2

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Monalisha Pal Mukherjee, JCIT, D/R
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 before the authorities below, the ld. A/R stated that

Ponni Sugars (Erode) Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Circle-Ltu, Chennai

In the result the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 685/CHNY/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.685/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri G.Lakshminarayanan, Dy.GMFor Respondent: Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar
Section 115JSection 80G

opportunity on 11.01.2024 and proceeded to dismiss the case for non-appearance. No appellant gains by non-prosecution of its case and reasonable opportunity of being heard is a natural right of every litigant. Accordingly, after considering various facets of the case we deem it fit to restore the matter

Chandraprabha, Puducherry vs. ITO, Ward-1, Puducherry

In the result the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 681/CHNY/2024[2017-18 ]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2024

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.681/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri T.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69

that it shall comply with all the notices issued by the Revenue. No appellant gains by non-prosecution of its case and reasonable opportunity of being heard is a natural right of every litigant. We are of the view that ends of justice would be met if the assessee

Dhevi Ramesh, Chennai vs. To, Non Corp Ward-11(3), Chennai

In the result the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 670/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.670/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dhevi Ramesh, The Income Tax Officer, No.33, Pudupet Garden Street, Vs. Non Corp Ward11(3), Royapettah, Chennai. Chennai- 600014 [Pan-Acmpd1252H) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri D.Anand, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri D.Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 40a

that it shall comply with all the notices issued by the Revenue. No appellant gains by non-prosecution of its case and reasonable opportunity of being heard is a natural right of every litigant. We are of the view that ends of justice would be met if the assessee

F I Auto Components Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Corp Ward 2(2), Chennai

In the result the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 657/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.657/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri T.V.Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148

that it shall comply with all the notices issued by the Revenue. No appellant gains by non-prosecution of its case and reasonable opportunity of being heard is a natural right of every litigant. We are of the view that ends of justice would be met if the assessee

Kaakkum Karangal, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward -3, Chennai

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

ITA 1561/CHNY/2023[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2024

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1561/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: - V. Kaakkum Karangal, The Income Tax Officer, Old No.11, New No.47, Exemption Ward-3, East Mada Street, Chennai. Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai – 600 041. [Pan: Aaatk 5406 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.M.Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V.Nandakumar, CIT
Section 10Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

satisfied, pass an order in writing rejecting such application and also cancelling its registration after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard; (c)where the application is made under sub-clause (vi) of the said clause, pass an order in writing provisionally registering the trust or institution for a period ... otherwise of any specified violation; (ii)pass an order in writing, cancelling the registration of such trust or institution, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard, for such previous year and all subsequent previous years, if he is satisfied that one or more specified violations have taken place; Kaakkum

Pushpendra Kumar Jain, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer 2(1), Ajmer

ITA 430/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi(CA) ( V.H.)For Respondent: Shri Anil Dhaka (CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

complete assistance in the assessment proceedings. Sh. Pushpendra Kumar Jain vs. ITO Of course, Learned Assessing Officer shall afford to the assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard in the said process of framing of assessment. Order pronounced in the open court on 31/05/2024. ¼jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ ¼ujsUnz dqekj

Pushpendra Kumar Jain, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer 2(1), Ajmer

ITA 429/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi(CA) ( V.H.)For Respondent: Shri Anil Dhaka (CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

complete assistance in the assessment proceedings. Sh. Pushpendra Kumar Jain vs. ITO Of course, Learned Assessing Officer shall afford to the assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard in the said process of framing of assessment. Order pronounced in the open court on 31/05/2024. ¼jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ ¼ujsUnz dqekj

R Arunachalam P C P P Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 717/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Manasa Ananthan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 40ASection 40aSection 68

provisions of law and liable to be quashed. 2. a. The learned CIT(A) has erred in in not providing an effective opportunity of being heard before passing an order under Section 250 of the Act. b. The learned CIT(A) has erred in serving hearing notices to the wrong ... case by producing documents and by providing an explanation. b. That the impugned assessment order is passed without affording fair and effective opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Hence the order is violative of principles of natural justice and deserves to be quashed. c. That the learned Assessing Officer

Visveswaraya Resham Khadi Industrial Association, Chikkaballapura vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Chikaballapura

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

ITA 361/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Visveswaraya Resham Khadi Industrial Association, Near Eswara Temple, The Income Tax Jangamakote Town, Officer, Post: Jangamakote Ward – 4(1), Shidlaghatta (Tq), Chikaballapur. Vs. Chikkaballapura Dist., Karnataka – 562 144. Pan: Aabav2671C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H. Guruswamy, Itp : Shri Narendra Kumar Naik, Revenue By Addl. Cit –Dr Date Of Hearing : 29-04-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2024 Order Per Beena Pillaithe Present Appeal Arises Out Of Order Dated 02/02/2024, Passed By Nfac, Delhi For Assessment Year 2018-19 Is On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITP
Section 144Section 148Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 69A

operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment in the matter. Needless to say that proper Page 9 of 9 opportunity of being heard is to granted to the assessee in accordance with law. Accordingly the grounds raised by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes