← 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

Ganesh Atmaram Mokashe, Pune vs. DCIT Cen Cir 39, Mumbai

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

ITA 4523/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Jha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule- C.I.T. D.R
Section 250

issues were r. 5. estored back to the files of the Assessing Officer for passing the fresh assessment order after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. Ld. CIT, DR, representing the Revenue also confirmed the above factual position. 7. Thus, after careful consideration of the facts ... officer by respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench of Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai to decide the issue afresh after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the assessing officer and produce all necessary documents and evidence before

Ganesh Atmaram Mokashe, Pune vs. DCIT Cen Cir 39, Mumbai

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

ITA 4522/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Jha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule- C.I.T. D.R
Section 250

issues were r. 5. estored back to the files of the Assessing Officer for passing the fresh assessment order after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. Ld. CIT, DR, representing the Revenue also confirmed the above factual position. 7. Thus, after careful consideration of the facts ... officer by respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench of Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai to decide the issue afresh after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the assessing officer and produce all necessary documents and evidence before

Anjama Rani, Delhi vs. ITO, Haryana

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

ITA 3542/DEL/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3542/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13

Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submits that appeal has been disposed of ex parte without giving an adequate opportunity of being heard. Ld. Counsel further submits that the Ld.CIT(A) has not decided the grounds on merits but the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. Therefore ... justice, this appeal is restored back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for deciding the appeal afresh on merits after providing adequate opportunity of being heard. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 30/04/2024 (C.N. PRASAD) JUDICIAL

Seema Singh, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 32(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 2777/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Seema Singh, Vs Ito, E-65, Chatterpur Extension, Near Ward-32(3), Suman Chowk, New Delhi-110074. New Delhi. Pan-Cazps4606K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pulkit Verma, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 23.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.04.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi Dated 29.03.2023 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

reopening the assessment u/s 147 by Issuing notice u/s 148 and has erred in passing ex-parte order u/s 144 without giving proper opportunity of being heard. 2.1 That on facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the ex- parte order without giving proper opportunity ... reopening the assessment u/s 147 by Issuing notice u/s 148 and has erred in passing ex-parte order/s 144 without giving proper opportunity of being heard. 3.2 That on facts and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in passing the order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 without providing the reasons

Sarabjeet Kaur, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 59(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 2186/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2186/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18

justice, this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi to decide afresh on merits after providing adequate opportunity of being heard. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 30/04/2024 (C.N. PRASAD) JUDICIAL

Daulat Ram, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 64(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2111/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2111/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12

assessee, at the outset, submits that appeal has been disposed of by the Ld.CIT(A)-NFAC ex parte without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Ld. Counsel submits that when the appeal was fixed for hearing on 1 I.T.A.No.2111/Del/2023 26.05.2023 the assessee sought an adjournment

Shree Roshan Cold Storage, Sambhal vs. Pr. CIT, Bareilly

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 1157/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: The Tribunal Within The Period Of Limitation Provided Under The Act, Therefore, Sought For Condonation Of The Delay. For The Reasons Stated In The Application Filed By The Assessee For Condonation Of Delay, The Delay Of 350 Days In Filing The Present

Section 143(3)Section 263

Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the Ld. PCIT passed ex-parte order impugned wherein the Assessee has not been provided opportunity of being heard, therefore, sought for remanding the matter to the file of PCIT for fresh consideration. 5. Per contra, the Departmental Representative submitted that the Assessee ... PCIT has not decided the issued on merit and passed the order impugned without hearing the Assessee. In our considered opinion, if an opportunity of being heard given to the Assessee and decide the issue on merit by the Ld. PCIT, substantial justice would be rendered. Accordingly, we remand

Skn Infrastructure Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle -4(1), Gurgaon

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

ITA 1069/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. Brr Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1069/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Skn Infrastructure Private Limited Acit 4, 1St Floor, Paras Downtown Centre, Vs. Circle-4(1), Dlf-V, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon, Gurgaon, Haryana. Haryana. Pan No.Aaocs6677G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

justice, this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for deciding afresh in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 30/04/2024

Mr.Bhupendra Kumar Tiwari, Gonda vs. ITO-6(1), Lucknow

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

ITA 79/LKW/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaa.Ys. 2021-22 Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Tiwari, Vs. Ito, P.S. Bhitaree-1, Wazirganj, Ward 6(1) Distt. Gonda Lucknow Pan Agmpt 0366J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2024 O R D E R

Section 115BSection 144Section 234ASection 270ASection 271ASection 274Section 69A

applicable. 7.BECAUSE the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in fact and in law in making the assessment order without giving the reasonable opportunity of being heard. 8. BECAUSE the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in initiation of penalty proceeding u/s 274 read with section 270A while my income is below

Ram Saran, Lucknow vs. ITO-4(3), Lucknow

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

ITA 427/LKW/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaa.Ys. 2017-18 Ram Saran, Vs. Income Tax Officer-4(3), 55, Aghaiya, Nigoha, Lucknow. Mohallalganj, Lucknow. Pan Fjlps 6765K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144

Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in dismissing the appeal of the appellant without giving proper opportunity of being heard and is against principle of natural justice. 2. BECAUSE the Id. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in dismissing

Ganesh Prasad Omer, Kanpur vs. ITO Ward-1(3)(5), Kanpur

ITA 413/LKW/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year 2017-18 Ganesh Prasad Omar, Vs. Income Tax Officer-1(3)(5), Mangal Kriti Apartment, Kanpur 128/17, K- Block, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur. Pan Aaspo 8884E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

Appeals) erred in law in absolutely violating the principles of Natural Justice, the appellant has not been allowed any adequate opportunity of being heard and therefore the Appellate Order deserves to be declared a nullity. 3 2. That the L.D CIT(Appeals) had issued the notices on the E-Mail ... Appeals) on the Old E-Mail Ids which were not in operation by the appellant. The appellant had thus been denied an opportunity of being heard as no notices were being received by him. 3. That the E-Mail Ids updated on the Income Tax Portal were "gaurav9956090197@gmail.com" and caankur2013

Sanjay Gupta, Gonda vs. ITO, Gonda-New

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

ITA 402/LKW/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year 2017-18 Sanjay Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Shop No. 179/1 Gonda-New Maharajganj, Utraula Road Po Bus Station, Gonda 271001 Pan Aiepg 6669F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 144Section 69A

justice. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in passing the order without giving adequate opportunity of being heard 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in passing the order without taking cognizance

Mohammad Farhan, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), Lucknow-New

ITA 379/LKW/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year 2017-18 Mohd. Farhan, Vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), 137 First Floor Lekhraj Lucknow-New Khajana, Indira Nagar, Lucknow. Pan Aaxpe 2495D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

Appeals) erred in law in absolutely violating the principles of Natural Justice, the appellant has not been allowed any adequate opportunity of being heard and therefore the Appellate Order deserves to be declared a nullity 3 2. That the L.D CIT(Appeals) had issued the notices on the E-Mail ... Appeals) on the Old E-Mail Ids which were not in operation by the appellant. The appellant had thus been denied an opportunity of being heard as no notices were being received by him. 3. That the E-Mail Ids updated on the Income Tax Portal were "gaurav9956090197@gmail.com" and caankur2013

Gorur Infra Projects Private Limited, Raigad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pnvel Circle, Panvel

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

ITA 163/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Smt Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 251Section 80I

condone the delay in filing of the appeal and decide the issue on merit as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result

Built Up, Pune vs. ITO, Ward3(1), Pune

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

ITA 121/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri V L JainFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 80I

with a direction to condone the delay in filing of the appeal and decide the issue on merit after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The CIT(A) shall decide the issue as per fact and law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised

Candid Industries Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 83/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar(Through Virtual Mode) & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.83/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) Candid Industries Limited Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Plot No.1, Survey No.308, Circle 1(1) Venkateswara Co- Hyderabad Operative, Industrial Estate, Jeedimetla, Hyderabad Pan:Aaace4493Q (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Mv Joshi, Ca Appeared For Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/04/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 29/04/2024

For Appellant: Shri MV Joshi, CA appeared for Shri P. MuraliFor Respondent: : Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

556/HYD/2023 and the Tribunal restored the issues back to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudicating the issues afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Following similar reasonings given by the ITAT in the above said cases and considering the totality of the facts

Shree Anjani Sarees Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 79/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

ignoring the fact that relief granted by Hon’ble ITAT, Kolkata as in the case of assessee without giving any proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. However, a show cause notice was issued on 24.06.2021 to furnish 3 AY: 2016-17 Shree Anjani Sarees Pvt. Ltd. the reply ... order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act against the assessee which is bad in law as the assessee did not get any opportunity of being heard liable to be set aside. It is further submitted that there is no concealment of income on the part of assessee as alleged

Dr. Subhas Chandra Saha Charitable Trust, Coochbehar vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 222/KOL/2024[00]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2024

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 221 & 222/Kol/2024 Dr. Subhas Chandra Saha Cit (Exemption), Kolkata Charitable Trust Vs C/O P.K. Saja Hospital Bairagi Dighi Bye Lane Coochbehar - 736101 [Pan : Aaetd0949H] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Giridhir Dhelia, A/R Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: Both These Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(E)”) Even Dt. 02/01/2024. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Several Grounds Of Appeal In Both These Appeals But The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee, Before Us Submitted That The Orders Of The Ld. First Appellate Authority Passed In Both These Appeals Are Ex-Parte & Assessee Was Not Afforded Reasonable Opportunity Of Hearing. That The Ld. Cit(E) Has Not Disposed Off The Appeals On Merits & If It Had Been So, The Assessee Stood A Fair Chance In Succeeding. Therefore, He Prayed That Both The Appeals Be Restored To The File Of The Ld. Cit(E) For Fresh Adjudication On Merits, After Providing The Assessee Opportunity Of Being Heard.

For Appellant: Shri Giridhir Dhelia, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R

that both the appeals be restored to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication on merits, after providing the assessee opportunity of being heard. 2 I.T.A. No. 221 & 222/Kol/2024 Dr. Subhas Chandra Saha Charitable Trust The ld. D/R, though not leaving his grounds, did not oppose this ... file of the ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication on merit. The ld. CIT(E) shall afford the assessee with sufficient opportunity of being heard and thereafter pass a speaking order on merit of the case. Needless to mention that the assessee shall produce all necessary documents/evidence in support

Dr. Subhas Chandra Saha Charitable Trust, Coochbehar vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 221/KOL/2024[00]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2024

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 221 & 222/Kol/2024 Dr. Subhas Chandra Saha Cit (Exemption), Kolkata Charitable Trust Vs C/O P.K. Saja Hospital Bairagi Dighi Bye Lane Coochbehar - 736101 [Pan : Aaetd0949H] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Giridhir Dhelia, A/R Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: Both These Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(E)”) Even Dt. 02/01/2024. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Several Grounds Of Appeal In Both These Appeals But The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee, Before Us Submitted That The Orders Of The Ld. First Appellate Authority Passed In Both These Appeals Are Ex-Parte & Assessee Was Not Afforded Reasonable Opportunity Of Hearing. That The Ld. Cit(E) Has Not Disposed Off The Appeals On Merits & If It Had Been So, The Assessee Stood A Fair Chance In Succeeding. Therefore, He Prayed That Both The Appeals Be Restored To The File Of The Ld. Cit(E) For Fresh Adjudication On Merits, After Providing The Assessee Opportunity Of Being Heard.

For Appellant: Shri Giridhir Dhelia, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R

that both the appeals be restored to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication on merits, after providing the assessee opportunity of being heard. 2 I.T.A. No. 221 & 222/Kol/2024 Dr. Subhas Chandra Saha Charitable Trust The ld. D/R, though not leaving his grounds, did not oppose this ... file of the ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication on merit. The ld. CIT(E) shall afford the assessee with sufficient opportunity of being heard and thereafter pass a speaking order on merit of the case. Needless to mention that the assessee shall produce all necessary documents/evidence in support

Punctual Vincom (P)Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 983/KOL/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 982 & 983/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Punctual Vincom Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), 63, Radha Bazar Street Vs Kolkata 3Rd Floor, Room No. 10 Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aafcp7707H] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Archana Gupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: Both These Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Even Dt. 21/07/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012- 13. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Several Grounds Of Appeal In Both These Appeals By Way Of Revised Grounds Of Appeal But The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee, Before Us Submitted That The Orders Of The Ld. First Appellate Authority Passed In Both These Appeals Are Ex-Parte & Assessee Was Not Afforded Reasonable Opportunity Of Hearing. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Not Disposed Off The Appeals On Merits & If It Had Been So, The Assessee Stood A Fair Chance In Succeeding. Therefore, He Prayed That Both The Appeals Be Restored To The File Of The Ld. Cit(A) For Fresh

For Appellant: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Archana Gupta, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 250

fresh 2 I.T.A. No. 982 & 983/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Punctual Vincom Pvt. Ltd. adjudication on merits, after providing the assessee opportunity of being heard. The ld. D/R, though not leaving her grounds, did not oppose this request of the ld. Counsel for the assessee. 3. We have heard ... file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merit. The ld. CIT(A) shall afford the assessee with sufficient opportunity of being heard and thereafter pass a speaking order on merit of the case. Needless to mention that the assessee shall produce all necessary documents/evidence in support