← 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

Hoina Homes of the Indian Nation, Vizainagaram vs. Income Tax Officer(Exemption Ward), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 313/VIZ/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Mar 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.313/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2021-22) Hoina Homes Of The Indian Nation Vs. Income Tax Officer The Hoina Campus (Exemption Ward) Kotha Sunkarapalem Visakhapatnam Vizianagaram [Pan : Aaath3676B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154

duly filing Form No.9A as per IT Rules, he pleaded to set aside the orders passed by the revenue authorities and afford an opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A) to substantiate it’s claim with relevant material evidences, in the interest of justice. 4 I.T.A. No.313/Viz/2023, A.Y.2021-22 Hoina ... paper book before me and submitted that the assessee has all material evidences in support of it’s claim. He pleaded for an opportunity of being heard to substantiate it’s claim before the Ld.CIT(A). In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances of the case and keeping

Villuri Varaha Venkata Srinu Rama Nageswara Rao(HUF), Anakapalle vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 305/VIZ/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.305/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-17) V.V.V.Srinu Rama Nageswara Rao Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of (Huf) Income Tax Flat No.201, Nk Grand, 5Th Line Circle-1(1) Siemon Nagar, Kurmanapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaihv5758A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 3

submissions made by the assessee. The Ld. AR therefore pleaded to set aside the orders passed by the revenue authorities and afford an opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A) to substantiate it’s case in the interest of justice. 6. Per contra, the Ld.DR relied on the order ... natural justice, I am inclined to remit the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to afford another opportunity of being heard to the assessee to substantiate it’s case. The assessee is also directed to adhere to the notices issued and served

Andhavarapu Srinivasa Rao, Srikakulam vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-4, Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 288/VIZ/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 269SSection 271D

before the Tribunal was not raised before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC and therefore he pleaded that in order to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC to adjudicate the appeal

Mangalkamna Commosale Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-4(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 989/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

grounds of appeal: “1. For that the ld. CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte without allowing the appellant any proper opportunity of being heard. 2. For that the appellant craves leave to produce additional evidences in terms of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules ... prayed that grounds raised in the instant appeal may be restored to the ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard. 3. We after hearing the ld. DR and perused the records placed before us. Through ground no. 1 of the assessee has stated that

M/S Prudential Management Advisors Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-3(1), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 719/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 719/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Prudential Management Assistant Commissioner Of Advisors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Kolkata Suite No. 10, 5Th Floor Shantiniketan Building 8, Camac Street Kolkata - 700017 [Pan : Aaecp2505Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manoj Kataruka, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/01/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/03/2024 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, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 24/05/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Action Of The Cit(A) To Confirm The Addition Made By The Ao Of Rs.6,34,50,000/- On Account Of Loss On Sale Of Investments Is Contrary To The Material Evidences Of Record & The Addition Is Arbitrary, Excessive & Illegal. 2) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Action Of The Cit(A) Confirm The Addition Made By The Ao Of Rs.25,33,00,386/- On Account Of Sundry Creditors U/S 41(1) Of The Act Is Contrary To The Material Evidences Of Record & The Addition Is Arbitrary, Excessive & Illegal.

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 254Section 41(1)

above, the aforesaid additional grounds may kindly be admitted and adjudicated while hearing the cross objection filed by the assessee. An opportunity of being heard is prayed for.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in investment business. Return of income ... restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the same afresh after giving the assessee proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard.” 8. The above directions of this Tribunal has been adhered by the Assessing Officer and carried out assessment proceedings and, therefore, there

Malaya Mukherjee, Durgapur vs. DCIT, Cir. 1, Durgapur

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

ITA 1444/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1444/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Malaya Mukherjee Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, B-132, Aldrin Path Vs Circle-1, Durgapur Bidhannagar Durgapur - 713212 [Pan : Alspm9084D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/03/2024 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, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 20/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal As Non-Admissible On The Ground That There Was Three Days Delay In Filing Of The Appeal When The Assessment Order Was Dated 14.12.2018 Which Date Was Stated In The Memo Of Appeal But In Fact, The Order Was Not Served Or Uploaded During The Office Hours On 14.12.2018 & Was Even Singed After Close Of Office Hours & Further 15Th & 16Th December Being Saturday & Sunday, There Was No Delay & The Appeal Was Filed Within Time When The Actual Date Of Service Is Taken. 2. For That The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal On The Ground Of Delay In Filing Of Appeal By Only 3 Days Without Even Granting Any Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, A/RFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 43(6)

erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay in filing of appeal by only 3 days without even granting any opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 2 I.T.A. No. 1444/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Malaya Mukherjee 3. For that the Ld CIT(A) should have condoned

Mukesh Kumar Ranka, Indore, Madhya Pradesh vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh

Appeals are allowed

ITA 98/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Indore21 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271ASection 274

wherein, it directs that no order imposing penalty shall be made unless the assessee has been heard or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, from plain reading of section 271AAB of the Act, it is evident that the penalty cannot be imposed unless the assessee ... hear the assessee and to give reasonable opportunity to explain his case, there is no mandatory requirement of imposing penalty, because the opportunity of being heard and reasonable opportunity is not a mere formality but it is to adhere to the principles of natural justice. Hon’ble A.P. High Court

Mukesh Kumar Ranka, Indore, Madhya Pradesh vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh

Appeals are allowed

ITA 97/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Indore21 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271ASection 274

wherein, it directs that no order imposing penalty shall be made unless the assessee has been heard or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, from plain reading of section 271AAB of the Act, it is evident that the penalty cannot be imposed unless the assessee ... hear the assessee and to give reasonable opportunity to explain his case, there is no mandatory requirement of imposing penalty, because the opportunity of being heard and reasonable opportunity is not a mere formality but it is to adhere to the principles of natural justice. Hon’ble A.P. High Court

Anju Jain, Lr Shri Sushil Jain, Indore, Madhya Pradesh vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh

Appeals are allowed

ITA 104/IND/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Indore21 Mar 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271ASection 274

wherein, it directs that no order imposing penalty shall be made unless the assessee has been heard or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, from plain reading of section 271AAB of the Act, it is evident that the penalty cannot be imposed unless the assessee ... hear the assessee and to give reasonable opportunity to explain his case, there is no mandatory requirement of imposing penalty, because the opportunity of being heard and reasonable opportunity is not a mere formality but it is to adhere to the principles of natural justice. Hon’ble A.P. High Court

Anju Jain, Lr Sushil Jain, Indore, Madhya Pradesh vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh

Appeals are allowed

ITA 103/IND/2024[AY 2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Indore21 Mar 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271ASection 274

wherein, it directs that no order imposing penalty shall be made unless the assessee has been heard or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, from plain reading of section 271AAB of the Act, it is evident that the penalty cannot be imposed unless the assessee ... hear the assessee and to give reasonable opportunity to explain his case, there is no mandatory requirement of imposing penalty, because the opportunity of being heard and reasonable opportunity is not a mere formality but it is to adhere to the principles of natural justice. Hon’ble A.P. High Court

Bootstrappers Research Council, Chennai vs. CIT Exemption Chennai, Chennai

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

ITA 1309/CHNY/2023[--]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Mar 2024

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1309/Chny/2023

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 11Section 12(1)(ac)Section 12ASection 13

contrary to law, facts of the case and material on record. 2. (i) The CIT(E) is not justified in not allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant before rejecting the application for registration u/s.12AB of the Act. (ii) The CIT(E) erred in passing a rejection order ... assessee to have effectively and appropriately responded to the SCN. Thus, a presumption of the assessee not being given a fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard :- 6 -: can be safely drawn. It is also pertinent to point out that in Para No.9 of his impugned order the Ld.CIT(Exemption

Shweta Singh, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 33(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3528/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar
Section 250Section 54F

facts on record. 2. NATURAL JUSTICE 2.1 In the facts the Ld. CIT (A) erred in not granting a proper, sufficient, and adequate opportunity of being heard to the Appellant while passing the appellate order. 2.2 It is submitted that, in the facts and the circumstances of the case

Quality Apparel Exporters Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle- 11(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 487/MUM/2020[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2024AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Pranit TannaFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule
Section 133ASection 144Section 148Section 250

this issue to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication. Needless to mention no order shall be passed without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Further, the AO is also directed to provide the opportunity to the assessee to respond to any material sought

Quality Apparel Exporters Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle- 11(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 486/MUM/2020[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2024AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Pranit TannaFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule
Section 133ASection 144Section 148Section 250

this issue to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication. Needless to mention no order shall be passed without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Further, the AO is also directed to provide the opportunity to the assessee to respond to any material sought

Anita Chauhan, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Ghaziabad

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 700/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

much as it suffers from the vice of violation of the principles of natural justice and denial of opportunity of being heard, rendering the assessment void ab initio. 2 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of income Tax (Appeal ... time barred as on 11.03.2019 despite asstt. order passes on 30.11.2018. That the appellant assessee has not been provided the proper opportunity of being heard before passing the said ex parte order Hence the version of Ld. AD regarding service of statutory notices & considering the purchase deed properly

Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Noida vs. ACIT- Circle 5(3)(1) G B Nagar, Noida

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

ITA 2553/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2553/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Acit D-9, Sector-55, Noida, Vs. Circle-5(3)(1), Uttar Pradesh. Aayakar Bhawan, A-2D, Pan No. Actpg0359D Sector-24, (Gautam Budh Nagar), Noida, Uttar Pradesh. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

considered view that this appeal should be restored back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 21/03/2024

Rasandik Engineering Industries India Limited, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-19(1), Delhi

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

ITA 1492/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1492/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Rasandik Engineering Industries Acit India Limited, Vs. Circle-19(1), 14, Roz-Ka-Meo Industrial Area, C.R. Building, Sohna, Gurgaon, Haryana. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacr3381A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

that this appeal should go back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus, this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A). 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee

Ashok Kumar, Haryana vs. Pr, CIT, Rohtak, Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 580/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2016-17 Ashok Kumar, Vs Pcit, S/O Naseeb Chand, Rohtak, Dangra Road, Near Bus Stand, Haryana. Tohana, Distt. Fatehabad, Haryana – 125120. Pan: Ammpk4875B (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sunita Verma, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sunita Verma, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

direction to pass an order afresh in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made in the order after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, which is bad in law and must be quashed. 5. That Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax has not considered the reply

Mukesh Kumar Goel, Muzaffarnagar vs. JCIT Range- 1, Muzaffarnagar

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed accordingly

ITA 492/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 263

aside the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, directing the AO to pass the assessment afresh after verification and affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Aggrieved against this the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. At the time of hearing no one attended

Bumi Hiwat (India) P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1), New Delhi

ITA 4933/DEL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2004-05 Bumi Hiwat (India) P. Ltd., Vs Dcit, A1/292, Pankha Road, Circle-5(1), Janakpuri, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Aahca4306R Pan: Aabcb5995M

For Appellant: Ms Sashi M. Kapila, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Sunita Verma, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 254Section 274

well as that of the AO with the direction that the assessment is to be completed by the AO afresh after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee company. Bumi Hiwat (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT 4. The ld. AO, in second round of assessment, had again made ... file of the Assessing Officer to determine the income of the assessee on the basis of books of account and after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In these circumstances, the additions on merits i.e. based on the percentage of profit on the turnover, assessment of income