“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

Korada Ramesh Naidu, Visakhapatnam vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 65/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.65/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Korada Ramesh Naidu Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.2-120, Vemula Valasa Income Tax Anandapuram Mandalam Circle-2(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Crxpk5484J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

assessee has sources for the cash deposits made with credible material evidences. The Ld.AR, therefore pleaded that the assessee may be given an opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A) to substantiate his claim in order to meet the ends of justice. 5 I.T.A. No.65/Viz/2024, A.Y.2017-18 Korada Ramesh Naidu ... that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity for explaining the sources for the cash deposits made with evidences and pleaded for an opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A). Keeping in view the foregoing facts and circumstances of the case and in order to meet the principles

Shaik Allauddin, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), Vijayawada

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

ITA 301/VIZ/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 May 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.301/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Shaik Allauddin Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.17-21-24, Allauddin Street Ward-3(1) Pezzoni Pet Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Aiyps2626J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M.Madhusudan, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR

Section 144Section 69A

I.T.A. No.301/Viz/2023, A.Y.2017-18 Shaik Allauddin, Vijayawada adjournment passed order in a hurry. He, therefore, pleaded that the assessee may be given an opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A) to substantiate his claim with material evidences. 7. Per contra, the Ld.DR submitted that the assessee was given enough opportunities ... assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to substantiate his case with the evidences in support of his claim and therefore pleaded for an opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A). Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and in order to meet the principles

Palsons Derma Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 198/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 198/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Palsons Derma Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 10/D/1, Ho-Chi-Minh Sarani Vs Circle – 11(1), Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaecp5629D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca Revenue By : Shri Archana Gupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/05/2024 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 Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter The “Ld. First Appellate Authority”) Dt. 26/12/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Grievance Raised In Ground No. 1 Is That The Ld. First Appellate Authority Erred In Not Condoning The Delay Of 675 Days In Filing Of The Appeal & Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal As Non-Maintainable. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Delay As Arisen Because After Receiving Intimation U/S 143(1)(A) Of The Act, Rectification Filed U/S 154 Of The Act Was Rejected & In The Meantime, Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dealing With The Issues Arising Out Of The Intimation

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Archana Gupta, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

speaking order duly considering the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act. Needless to say that the assessee be granted sufficient opportunity of being heard. The assessee shall adduce all necessary documents/evidence in support of its claim before the ld. First Appellate Authority. 5. In the result, appeal

Sri. Biswajit Bera, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-27(3), Haldia

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

ITA 1134/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1134/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sri Biswajit Bera Income Tax Officer, Ward – 27(3), C/O. M/S. Salarpuria Jajodia & Co. Vs Haldia 7, C.R. Avenue 3Rd Floor Kolkata - 700072 [Pan : Blwpb4251N] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, Fca Revenue By : Shri Monalisha Pal Mukherjee, Jcit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/05/2024 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. 21/03/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 152 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. We Find That The Assessee Has Placed An Affidavit Dated 19/01/2024, Stating Therein The Reasons For The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Before This Tribunal With A Prayer To Condone The Delay. The Reasons Stated In The Affidavit Are Reproduced Below:- “4. That The Said Delay Of 151 Days In Filing The Appeal By The Appellant Before The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata, Is Not Intentional But The Said Delay Is Due To The Following Reasons & Circumstances: -

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Monalisha Pal Mukherjee, JCIT, D/R

Section 250

Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that both the lower authorities have passed ex-parte orders, without granting the assessee sufficient opportunity of being heard and that 3 I.T.A. No. 1134/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sri Biswajit Bera the assessee has a fair chance of succeeding on merits ... merits to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication in accordance with law after granting the assessee sufficient opportunity of being heard. The assessee is directed to produce all necessary documents/evidence in support of its claim. The ld. Assessing Officer shall consider the same and frame

Shri Padam Prabhu Jain Aushdhalaya Vikas Samiti, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Alwar

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 98/JPR/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 May 2024AY 2022-2023

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)

Section 10Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 144BSection 80G

hearing, the Id. AR of the assessee vehemently argued that both the application was not considered and assessee was not given proper opportunity of being heard. The Id. AR of the assessee demonstrated by filling the screen short of the Gamil account wherein only the first notice was served ... served to the assessee. Thus, without considering the merits of the case the bench feels that the assessee must be provided adequate opportunity of being heard and be given a fair chance by the Id. CIT(E) to cure the defect / non submission of the certain information called for from

Shri Krishna Maa Jalpa Bhawani Gaushala Samiti, Taranagar vs. CIT (Exemption), Jaipur

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

ITA 699/JPR/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar Kabra, CA &For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 80G

mention that during the course of hearing the ld. AR of the assessee prayed that he was deprived off availing of adequate opportunity of being heard by the ld. CIT(E) in both the orders (supra). The Bench does not want to go into merit of the case ... imperative that the assessee must be provided adequate opportunity of being heard by the ld. CIT(E). In this view of the matter, the Bench feels that the assessee should be given one more chance to contest the case before

Daridra Narayan Sewa Trust, Jaipur vs. CIT (Exemption), Jaipur

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

ITA 652/JPR/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 May 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta CA &For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 10(230)Section 12ASection 80G

with a direction to reconsider the From No. 10AB for final registration u/s. 80G of the Act by giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee trust. Needless to say the assessee trust should co-operate by furnishing all the required details as mandated under the law for granting ... supra) restores the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for final registration u/s 80G of the Act by giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee trust. The assessee is directed to produce all the relevant paper before the ld.CIT(E) as mentioned hereinabove to settle

Sureshkumar Parasmal Jain, Kalyan vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(4), Kalyan

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

ITA 69/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Blesureshkumar Parasmal Jain V. Income Tax Officer - Ward 3(4) Rani Mansion, 2Nd Floor Shop No. 2/3, Pardeshi Building Murbad Road, Kalyan-421301 Old Station Road, Kalyan West Maharashtra Maharashtra - 421301 Pan: Aarpj2172K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Piyush Chhajed Department Represented By : Shri Paresh Deshpande

file of the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal afresh, after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to update its E-Mail ID and inform the authorities as early as possible

Markolines Infra Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT/DCIT Circle 15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2020-

ITA 366/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Gagan Goyaland

For Appellant: Shri Pradip KapasiFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

expenditure on payment of Employee’s contribution of Rs.1,75,81,498/- while issuing the intimation u/s 143(1) without providing an opportunity of being heard of objecting to the proposed adjustment by failing to issue the statutory notice under clause (a) of sub- section (1) of section ... facts in disallowance of employees contribution towards ESI/Provident Fund at the time of issuing intimation u/s. 143(1) of the ITA without providing opportunity of being heard by failing to issue statutory notice as provided in the proviso to Sec.143(1) (a) of the ITA.” Markolines Infra

Income Tax Officer, Thane vs. Muljibhai Arjanbhai Sakaria, Thane

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

ITA 2794/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Smitha V. Nair

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 250

such bogus purchases at the same rate as that of the other genuine purchases, Needless to add the assessee should be granted adequate opportunity of being heard.” 10. Thus, respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Co–ordinate Bench of the Tribunal which in turn has followed the decision ... assessee then no further addition be made. Needless to mention no order shall be passed without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the grounds raised in the Revenue’s appeal are allowed for statistical purposes. 11. In the result, the appeal by the Revenue

Markolines Infra Pvt Ltd., Belapur vs. ACIT/DCIT Circle-15(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1170/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Gagan Goyaland

For Appellant: Shri Pradip KapasiFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

expenditure on payment of Employee's contribution of Rs.1,75,81,498/- while issuing the intimation u/s 143(1) without providing an opportunity of being heard of objecting to the proposed adjustment by failing to issue the statutory notice under clause (a) of sub- section (1) of section

ACIT-15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Markolines Infra Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2967/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Pradip KapasiFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

Himalaya Trust, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-50(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 73/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 11Section 11(5)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80G

claim deduction under Section 80G/80GGA of the Act. The Learned Assessing Officer is further directed to dispose of the matter upon giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and upon considering the evidence on record or any other evidence which the assessee may choose to file

Rohit Bansal, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 45(7), Delhi

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

ITA 3239/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Sh. Sudhir Kumarrohit Bansal Vs. Income Tax Officer A-4/136, Paschim Vihar, Ward – 45(7) New Delhi-110 063 Delhi Pan No. Aoppb 5037 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pranshu Singhal, C.A. Revenue By Shri P. N. Barnwal, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.05.2024 Order Per Sudhir Kumar:

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in passing the order without giving assessee an opportunity of being heard in violation of the principle of natural justice. (ii) That the non-appearance before the Ld. CIT(A) was due to reasons beyond the control ... that AO passed order without considering the submissions of the assessee. Learned CIT(A) has also passed the order without giving assessee an opportunity of being heard in violation of the principal of natural justice. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee therefore submitted that one more opportunity

Hallex Applied Power Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-11(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 230/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

restore this issue to the file of the AO for de novo assessment. Needless to say that the assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, ground nos. 4 & 5 are set-aside to the file of the AO for de novo assessment. 17. In the result, the appeal

Rohini Gaurishankar Kalyani, Pune vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 7, Pune

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

ITA 319/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT

Section 12ASection 138Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

assessee and decide the issue on merit by passing a speaking order. Needless to say, the CIT(A) shall give due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue as per fact and law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly

Shri Nitin Nandlal Shrishrimal, Dhule vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Dhule, Circle

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

ITA 1366/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1366/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Nitin Nandlal Vs. Acit, Dhule Circle, Shrishrimal, Dhule. 1269, Agra Road, Near Gandhi Statute, Dhule- 424001. Pan : Azvps8225M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Naimish Dixit Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 18.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.05.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.09.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)Pune - 11, For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Present Appeal Is Filed Belatedly I.E. With The Delay Of 15 Days. The Appellant Furnished An Application Praying For Condonation Of Delay In The Circumstances Mentioned Therein. Ld. Sr. Dr Could Not Controvert The Averments Made In The Above Affidavit. We Are Of The Considered Opinion That The Reasons

For Appellant: Shri Naimish DixitFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 115BSection 133ASection 44A

back to the file of ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue in appeal on merits in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open

Avi Foundation, Nagpur vs. The Honorable Commissioner of Income Tax Pune, Pune

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 1345/PUN/2023[NIL]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2024

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Adjournment application rejectedFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

case referred to in sub-clause (B) of clause (iv) of the first proviso, rejecting such application, after affording it a reasonable opportunity of being heard;] (iii) ……. 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption),Pune in the case of the Assessee held that the Activities of the Assessee had commenced

Anil Tarachand Kadu, Ahmednagar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1(1), Pune

ITA 1059/PUN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1059/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Anil Tarachand Kadu, The Deputy Gut No.115, Ranjankhol, V Commissioner Of Income Tilaknagar, Ahmednagar, S Tax, Central Cirlce-1(1), Ahmednagar – 413720. Pune. Pan: Aplpk9182P Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Vinita Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07/05/2024 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 For A.Y.2013-14 Dated 07.08.2023 Emanating From The Assessment Order U/S.143(3) R.W.S 153A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.12.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : Anil Tarachand Kadu [A]

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in passing the ex-parte order, without granting sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirmation ... dismissed by the ld.CIT(A) without discussing each and every ground and merits of the case. 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(AO) and ld.CIT

Anil Tarachand Kadu, Ahmednagar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1(1), Pune

ITA 1058/PUN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1058/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Anil Tarachand Kadu, The Deputy Gut No.115, Ranjankhol, V Commissioner Of Income Tilaknagar, Ahmednagar, S Tax, Central Cirlce-1(1), Ahmednagar – 413720. Pune. Pan: Aplpk9182P Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Vinita Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07/05/2024 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 For A.Y.2013-14 Dated 07.08.2023 Emanating From The Penalty Order U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act, 1961 Dated 20.06.2018. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing The Ex-Parte Order, Without Anil Tarachand Kadu [A]

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

well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in passing the ex-parte order, without Anil Tarachand Kadu [A] granting sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred ... dismissed by the ld.CIT(A) without discussing each and every ground and merits of the case. 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(AO) and ld.CIT