← All Phrases

“opportunity of being heard”

Natural JusticeAudi Alteram PartemAudi Alteram Partem22,508 judgments

The decision most relied on for opportunity of being heard is CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. (38 ITD 320), cited in 2,267 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on opportunity of being heard

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.
38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
2,267
citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another
118 ITR 461 · 1997 · Supreme Court
1,656
citing judgments

Appealing a tax assessment requires more than just filing the appeal; it involves actively pursuing it. The assessee must effectively engage with the appellate process.

Rashmikant Kundalia v. Union of India
54 Taxmann.com 200 · 2015 · High Court
702
citing judgments

Section 234E, levying late fees for delayed filing of TDS statements under section 200(3), is constitutionally valid and constitutes a compensatory fee, not a punitive penalty. Before treating any person as an assessee-in-default, an opportunity of being heard must be provided.

Tin Box Company v. CIT
249 ITR 216 · 2001 · Supreme Court
624
citing judgments

When an issue is remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, the AO must conduct a de novo examination and provide the assessee a full opportunity of being heard. The assessee is bound to comply with the notices issued by the AO.

CIT v. Vikas Polymers
341 ITR 537 · 2012 · High Court
318
citing judgments

An assessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial under Section 263 merely because the Assessing Officer did not record an enquiry and its satisfactory answer in the assessment order, provided such an enquiry was conducted. For revision under Section 263, the Commissioner must also provide the assessee an opportunity of being heard and examine their explanation.

Commissioner of Income Tax Madras v. Chenniyappa Mudiliar
1 SCC 591 · 1985 · Reported
225
citing judgments

The appellate tribunal must render a proper decision on both facts and law, disposing of an appeal on its merits rather than dismissing it solely due to the appellant's absence. This obligation is derived from Section 33(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, and reflects principles of natural justice.

ITO v. M. Pirai Choodi
334 ITR 262 · 2011 · Supreme Court
211
citing judgments

If an assessee was denied an adequate opportunity of being heard, including the right to cross-examine a witness, the assessment should be set aside and restored for fresh adjudication after affording due opportunity, even if the assessee failed to appear at an appellate stage. The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, should ensure such matters are re-adjudicated.

Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT
119 ITR 996 · 1979 · Supreme Court
205
citing judgments

An assessment cannot be reopened under Section 147/148 based on a mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer on material already considered during the original assessment, clarifying the scope of 'escaped assessment'.

Judgments citing opportunity of being heard

Anil Fireworks Factory, Virudhunagar vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Viridhunagar

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

ITA 1479/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri S. Kumarasubramanian, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 68

file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Needless to say that ITA No.1479/CHNY/2023. 5 the ld. CIT(A) will allow reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and assessee is also directed to represent its case as and when notice is issued, otherwise adverse view

Ramnath Buildhome, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

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

ITA 746/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

assessee prayed that the Id. CIT(A) has passed the ex-parte order and the assessee was not provided adequate opportunity of being heard. Thus, the assessee may be provided one more opportunity to advance his arguments/submissions before the ld. CIT(A) in the interest of equity and justice

Yuwak Sangh, Churu vs. CIT(Exemption), Jaipur

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

ITA 668/JPR/2023[2022-23(NOT APPLICABLE)]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Apr 2024

Bench: Cit(Exemption), Jaipur For Registration U/ 12Ab On 22.09.2022. The Id. Cit(E) Rejected The Application Of The Assessee On Dt. 23.02.2023 On The Reason

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 5

Impugned order u/s 12AB of the Act dated 23.02.2023 is bad in law and on facts, without providing adequate & reasonable opportunity of being heard, being without jurisdiction and for various other reasons and hence the same may kindly be quashed. 2. The Ld. CIT(E) erred in law as well ... para 3 above. 7. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that assessee was not provided adequate opportunity of being heard. Thus, the assessee 7 Yuwak Sangh vs.CIT(E) may be provided one more opportunity to advance his arguments/submissions before

Inder Lata Gera, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 54(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3273/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyainder Lata Gera, Vs. Ito, Ward 54 (1), D-2A, Ground Floor, New Delhi. Feroze Gandhi Road, Lajpat Nagar Ii, New Delhi – 110 024. (Pan : Auipg5853F)

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

interest of justice, I remit the issue to the file of AO. AO shall decide the issue afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this

Balbir Singh, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-68(5), Delhi

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

ITA 3117/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyabalbir Singh, Vs. Ito, Ward 68 (5), 1129, Gali No.17, Delhi. Near Purani Chopal, Rithala, New Delhi – 110 085. (Pan : Asaps4872N)

For Appellant: Shri R.R. Singla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 69A

interest of justice, the issue is remitted to the file of AO. AO shall adjudicate the issue afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this

Barkat Raj Capital P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 4(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1364/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaassessment Year: 2017-18. M/S Barkat Raj Capital Private Limited Vs Income-Tax Officer, 416, Ground Floor, Bhera Enclave, Ward 4(2), New Delhi. Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110087 Pan- Aaacr9530K Appellant Respondent Assessee Represented By Shri R.P. Mall, Adv. Department Represented By Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.04.2024

Section 143(3)

record. The limited grievance of the assessee before us is, the first appellate authority has dismissed the appeal without granting fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It was submitted that that the issues arising out of the additions made may be restored back to the Assessing ... Officer for de novo adjudication. 3.1 The learned Departmental Representative, though submitted that sufficient opportunity of being heard was provided to the assessee, however, he did not express any objection with regard to the restoration of the issues to the Assessing Officer. 3.2 Having considered rival submissions, we find that

Anil Kumar Lakhina, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-30(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5405/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5405/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 बनाम Anil Kumar Lakhina Acit 203, Nehru Place, New Delhi. Vs. Circle 30(1), Pan No.Aazpl4961G Room No.1302, 13Th Floor, Civic Centre, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

called ambiguous wording in the notice [has not] impaired or prejudiced the right of the assessee to a reasonable opportunity of being heard". It went onto observe that for sustaining the plea of natural justice on the ground of absence of opportunity, "it has to be established that prejudice

M/S City Shoppe Estates Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 4(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 42/KOL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Umakanta Dhrupati, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 68

City Shoppe Estates Ltd., AY 2010-11 mail. Hence, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) without giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee, is bad in law and need to be set aside. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) was wrong in confirming the addition

Ubmc Trust Association, Udupi vs. Income-Tax Officer, Exemptions Ward-1, Mangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed on the legal issue raised in the additional ground

ITA 694/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Ravi Shankar .S.V
Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 234ASection 250

reject the application for condonation as justice must not seem to be rendered but it must be rendered. Assessee cannot be denied the opportunity of being heard which is the basic principles of natural justice. 4.4 It is noted that there is no malafide intention on behalf of assessee

Ubmc Trust Association, Udupi vs. Income-Tax Officer, Exemptions Ward-1, Mangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed on the legal issue raised in the additional ground

ITA 693/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Ravi Shankar .S.V
Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 234ASection 250

reject the application for condonation as justice must not seem to be rendered but it must be rendered. Assessee cannot be denied the opportunity of being heard which is the basic principles of natural justice. 4.4 It is noted that there is no malafide intention on behalf of assessee

Rakesh Bhatia, Faridabad vs. ITO-Nwr -W-52(2) Faridabad- Haryana, Faridabad

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

ITA 422/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyarakesh Bhatia, Vs. Ito-Nmr-W-52 (2), 1J/17A, Nit, Faridabad. Faridabad – 121 001 (Haryana).

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Kumar Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44A

issue to the file of ld. CIT (A). Ld. CIT (A) is directed to consider the issue afresh after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this

Amit Trivedi, Bikaner vs. ITO Ward-1, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 637/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 143(1)Section 154

First Appellate Authority and restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open

Kandera Brick Field, Meerut vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Meerut

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

ITA 3680/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyakandera Brick Field, Vs. Ito, Ward 1 (5), C/O Shiam Lal Jain, Advocate, Meerut. 214/3, Police Street Sadar, Meeruti – 250 001 (Uttar Pradesh).

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

examine the evidence given about the veracity of contribution made by Dharam Pal Singh. Needless to add, assessee should be provided an opportunity of being heard. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this

Indresh Nagar, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Gautambudh Nagar

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

ITA 1545/DEL/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Indresh Nagar, Vs. Ito, Ward 1 (5), C/O Sanjeev Anand & Associates, Noida. 136, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad – 201 001 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Ajspn8423B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sumit Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2024 Date Of Order : 08.04.2024

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 234A

justice, we remit the issue to the file of AO. AO shall consider the issue afresh as per law after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court

Gloster Ltd(Formerly Known As Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd, Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 519/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Soumen Adak, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 263Section 40Section 74

submission of the assessee and verify the same from its books of account to reframe the assessment afresh after providing the assessee opportunity of being heard. 3.2. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has placed on record a paper book

Radha Diamonds, Erode vs. ITO, Circle-1, Erode

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

ITA 729/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.729/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Radha Diamonds, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 371, Nethaji Road, Circle 1, Erode. Erode 638 001, Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Aaifr0066K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Coimbatore-1, Coimbatore, Dated 23.03.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961[“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263

directed the Assessing Officer to re-do the assessment afresh after verification of facts by affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that without granting reasonable time ... order passed under section 263 of the Act and remit the matter back to the file of the ld. PCIT to afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee for filing its reply to the queries raised by the ld. PCIT. 9. In the result, the appeal filed

DCIT Central Circle2(4), Chennai vs. Shri O. Panneerselvam, Chennai

In the result, the cross-objections stands dismissed

ITA 582/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jmand Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.581/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.582/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri O. Panneerselvam बनाम Central Circle-2(4), No.70, South Agraharam, / Vs. Chennai. Tenkarai, Periakulam-625 601. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Amapp-6689-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 3. Cross Objection No.5/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.581/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 4. Cross Objection No.6/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.582/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri O. Panneerselvam Dcit बनाम No.70, South Agraharam, Central Circle-2(4), / Vs. Tenkarai, Periakulam-625 601. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Amapp-6689-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant/Cross Objector) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Shri V. Nanda Kumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr !"थ"कीओरसे/Assessee By : Shri G. Baskar (Advocate)- Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-01-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05-04-2024

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nanda Kumar (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 132(4)Section 153C

assessee, after examining the seized records and considering the sworn statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act and after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the amount of paid Rs.217,00,00,000/- by Shri O. Paneerselvam to SRS mining represents his undisclosed income. The amount

DCIT Central Circle2(4), Chennai vs. Shri O. Panneerselvam, Chennai

In the result, the cross-objections stands dismissed

ITA 581/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jmand Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.581/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.582/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri O. Panneerselvam बनाम Central Circle-2(4), No.70, South Agraharam, / Vs. Chennai. Tenkarai, Periakulam-625 601. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Amapp-6689-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 3. Cross Objection No.5/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.581/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 4. Cross Objection No.6/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.582/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri O. Panneerselvam Dcit बनाम No.70, South Agraharam, Central Circle-2(4), / Vs. Tenkarai, Periakulam-625 601. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Amapp-6689-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant/Cross Objector) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Shri V. Nanda Kumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr !"थ"कीओरसे/Assessee By : Shri G. Baskar (Advocate)- Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-01-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05-04-2024

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nanda Kumar (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 132(4)Section 153C

assessee, after examining the seized records and considering the sworn statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act and after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the amount of paid Rs.217,00,00,000/- by Shri O. Paneerselvam to SRS mining represents his undisclosed income. The amount

Ramaswamy Akilandeswari, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward 15(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1571/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1571/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ramaswamy Akilandeswari, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Old No. 16, New No. 35, Non Corporate Ward 15(1), Ganapathy Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Aibpa6254B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 27.10.2023 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 On 28.03.2018 Admitting Income Of ₹.5,00,620/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment Under Cass. The Assessing Officer Issued Statutory Notices Followed By 2

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 69A

natural justice, we remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to afford one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after considering the submissions/explanations of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) shall decide the issues on merits in accordance with

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Thiruthuraipoondi Tiruvenkadam Vivekanandam Dhinakaran, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1423/CHNY/2023[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2024AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1422 & 1423/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 1995-96 & 1996-97 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Thiruthuraipoondi Tiruvenkadam Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vivekanandam Dhinakaran, Investigation Building, 5, Iv Street, Venkateswara Nagar, Chennai – 34. Karpagam Gardens, Adyar, Chennai 600 020. [Pan:Abkpd2771Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.03.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 06.10.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Years 1995-96 & 1996-97. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, Shri Ttv Dhinakaran Has Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Years 1995 96 & 2

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153(3)Section 158B

operate for the early completion of assessment and the Department was directed to conclude all the proceedings after providing the due opportunity of being heard. 5. Since, the Hon'ble Madras High Court has directed the Assessing Officer to complete the proceedings initiated, both the Block/Search Assessment and reopened assessments