← 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

Pudhari Publications Private Ltd, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Kolhapur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 11/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Pune20 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.10 To 12/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 Pudhari Publications Private Ltd., The Ito, Tds, 2318, C Ward, Pudhari Bhavan, V Kolhapur – 416003. Bhausingji Road, S Kolhapur – 416002. Pan: Aadcp2453Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri S.N.Puranik – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Dr Date Of Hearing 19/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 All Dated 10.11.2023. Since Issue Involved Is Same, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By This Consolidated Order. We Treat Appeal In Ita No.10/Pun/2024 For A.Y.2019-20, As A Lead Case. The Assessee For A.Y.2019-20 Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 154Section 192Section 201(1)Section 220(2)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

without discussing each and every ground and merits of the case. Pudhari Publications Private Ltd., [A] 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

Pudhari Publications Private Limited, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Kolhapur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 10/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Pune20 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.10 To 12/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 Pudhari Publications Private Ltd., The Ito, Tds, 2318, C Ward, Pudhari Bhavan, V Kolhapur – 416003. Bhausingji Road, S Kolhapur – 416002. Pan: Aadcp2453Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri S.N.Puranik – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Dr Date Of Hearing 19/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 All Dated 10.11.2023. Since Issue Involved Is Same, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By This Consolidated Order. We Treat Appeal In Ita No.10/Pun/2024 For A.Y.2019-20, As A Lead Case. The Assessee For A.Y.2019-20 Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 154Section 192Section 201(1)Section 220(2)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

without discussing each and every ground and merits of the case. Pudhari Publications Private Ltd., [A] 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

Metal Industries, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward 6(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 605/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 Metal Industries, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, B-44, Industrial Estate, Ward – 6(3), Sanathnagar, Hyderabad. Hyderabad – 500018. Telangana. Pan : Aawfm8494Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hari Agarwal, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 25/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/02/2024

For Appellant: Shri Hari Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr.AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 68

adjudicated the grounds of appeal. 16.2 The aforesaid order was passed without granting the appellant, an opportunity of being heard before rejecting the condonation of delay. 16.3 The aforesaid order was against the principles of natural justice since it was passed before the date up to which the adjournment

Shree Society, Visakhapatnam vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 271/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.271/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Shree Society Vs. Income Tax Officer 26-9-28, Wood Yard Street Ward-1(5) Near Reading Room Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aanas1911Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri I Kama Sastry, AR)For Respondent: Dr.Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

verify the belated payments of PF and ESI contributions amounting to Rs.27,20,319/- and pass consequential order after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee came to know about the order passed by the Ld.PCIT, only when a message was received from the income tax department for payment ... A.Y.2017-18 by disallowing the deductions claimed. The Assessing Officer was also directed to afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing the consequential order. Accordingly, consequential order dated 09.09.2022 was passed, modifying the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 02.12.2019 as the assessee

Nunna Primary Agricultural Co-Op Credit Society Limited, Vijayawada vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(5), Vijayawada

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

ITA 259/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.259/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Nunna Primary Agricultural Co-Op Vs. Income Tax Officer Credit Society Ltd. Ward-3(5) D.No.6-56, Nunna Village Vijayawada Vijayawada Rural Krishna District [Pan : Aaban2838D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri I Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 249(4)(b)Section 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

I.T.A. No.259/Viz/2023, A.Y.2017-18 Nunna Primary Agricultural Co-op Credit Society Ltd.,Vijayawada direction to dispose of this appeal on merits after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to adhere to the notices issued by the department and cooperate with the proceedings

Vardhanapu Manikumari of Late Earnest Christopher Vardhanapu, Bhimavaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bhimavaram

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

ITA 256/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.256/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Smt.Vardhanapu Manikumari Vs. Income Tax Officer L/R Of (Late) Earnest Christopher Ward-1 Vardhanapu Bhimavaram D.No.21-16-30A Dora Bangalow Mission Compound, West Godavari [Pan : Aeepv0600F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

Ld.CIT(A) in-limine is against the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. The Ld.AR, therefore, pleaded to afford one more opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A) to substantiate assessee’s case in the interest of justice and direct the Ld.CIT(A) to pass order ... assessee. The Ld.AR contended that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunities to substantiate her case and therefore, pleaded for another opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A). However, in view of the foregoing facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the principles of natural justice

Chintala Bhaskara Rao, Visakhapatnam vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 148/VIZ/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.148/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Chintala Bhaskara Rao Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax D.No.8-272-8/2, Vuda Colony (Appeals) Gopalapatnam Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aiwpb2409G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Srirama Murthy, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

sources for cash deposits. Hence, the ex-parte orders passed by the revenue authorities are against law. He, therefore, pleaded to afford an opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A) to substantiate his case with material evidences. 6. Per contra, the Ld.DR argued that the assessee was given sufficient ... principles of natural justice, I am inclined to remit the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to afford one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to adhere to the notices issued by the department and cooperate with the proceedings

Andhara Pradesh State Beverages Corporation Ltd, Vijayawada vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur

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

ITA 117/VIZ/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.117/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-21) Andhra Pradesh State Beverages Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Corporation Ltd. Income Tax Prohibition & Excise Complex, Circle-1(1) Rsno.88/2B, Saivihar Apartments Guntur Poultry Farm Road Prasadampadu, Vijayawada [Pan : Aanca8537G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B.Satyanarayana MurthyFor Respondent: Dr.Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 144

Pradesh State Beverages Corporation Ltd.,Vijayawada 6. Further, the assessee filed a petition before the Tribunal for admitting additional evidence and afford an opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A) to substantiate it’s case, keeping in view the principles of natural justice for which the Ld.DR ... Ld.AR is that the Ld.CIT(A) is not justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee ex-parte without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard. The Ld.AR pleaded before the Tribunal to afford an opportunity before the Ld.CIT(A) to substantiate it’s case with documentary evidence. Apart from this

Kotari Srinivasa Rao, Undrajavaram Mandalam vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajahmundry

In the result, additional ground raised is allowed

ITA 335/VIZ/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.335/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Kotari Srinivasa Rao Vs. Principal Commissioner Of D.No.1-91, Canal Road Income Tax Velivennu Rajahmundry Undrajavaram Mandal West Godavari Dist. [Pan : Apjpk9870N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Md.Afzal,ARFor Respondent: Dr.Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263

existence of AOP, purpose of creation of AOP, identity of members of AOP, their creditworthiness to make contribution to AOP after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal ... erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify

Ashish Gehlot, Indore vs. The ITO-4(2), Indore

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

ITA 548/IND/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoshri Ashish Gehlot Ito-4(2) 177, Radio Colony Indore Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Amopg1266A Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.02.2024

Section 144Section 147Section 148

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte without giving proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding

Sivalingam Natarajan, Ponamaravathi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, Puducherry

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

ITA 1450/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, Addl CIT
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

back to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Needless to say that the ld. Assessing Officer will allow reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and assessee is also directed to represent his case as and when notice is issued, otherwise adverse view

Hallmark Infrastructure Private Iimited, Chennai vs. ITO, Corp. Ward 2(3). Chennai, Chennai

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

ITA 1446/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 1446/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Hallmark Infrastructure Pvt. The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Vs. Corporate Ward 2(3), 43, United Plaza, Usman Road, Chennai – 34. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. Pan: Aabch 5970J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68

arbitrary manner without considering the materials available on records. 3. The CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without granting reasonable opportunity of being heard.” 3. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. The ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the only issue ... aside and matter restored back to his file for fresh adjudication. Needless to say that the 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 can be taken against

Shri. Pramod Rao, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-5(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1016/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18 Pramod Rao Flat 414, Daisy Block Vijayasri Exixir Borewell Road, Whitefield Acit Vs. Bangalore 560 066 Circle-5(3)(1) Karnataka Bangalore Pan No.Aoqpr0414P Assessee Respondent Assessee By : N O N E Revenue By : Dr. Nischal, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Dated 6.10.2023. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Dr. Nischal, D.R
Section 144Section 69

above, could not provide the details of investment during the assessment and appeals with Commissioners Appeals. However, The appellant pleads for one more opportunity of being heard based on the merits of the case and details which he is providing now for the source of investments and hearing will save ... injustice of paying the taxes for already declared Income by way of part of Salary Income. g) The appellant pleads for one more opportunity of being heard on the merit of the case and set aside the Order of Commissioner Appeals and Assessment Order

Rampur Mahila Upbhokta Sehkari Samiti Ltd., Rampur vs. Income Tax Officer 1(3), Rampur

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 3881/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

circumstances of the case. 2 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), has erred in stating that adequate opportunity of being heard was given to the appellant in the assessment proceedings. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in passing the order ... without providing any proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), has erred in upholding the decision of the assessing officer of estimating the net profit at the rate of 8% on cash deposits of Rs. 49,62.300/-. 5. That

Intekhab Husain, Moradabad vs. Income Tax Officer 2(1), Moradabad - New

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 3877/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 3Section 69A

facts and in the circumstances of the case. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), has erred in stating that adequate opportunity of being heard was given to the appellant in the assessment proceedings. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in passing ... order u/s 250 without providing any proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 4 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), has erred in upholding the decision of the assessing officer of estimating the net profit of Rs. 3,62,000/- at the rate of 8% on cash

Dharmender Saini, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Faridabad

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3872/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

facts and circumstances of the case. The Ld. CIT (A) breached the Principle of Natural Justice by denying the Appellant the opportunity to be heard. The Ld. CIT (A) failed to take into account the adjournment sought by the Appellant on 21.11.2023 which was also the last date to submit ... aside and the grounds are restored to the file of learned CIT(A) to decide the same afresh after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes. 4 6. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court

Daya Rani, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT, Ghaziabad

ITA 402/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 263Section 54F

case, Ld. Pr.CIT has erred in law and on facts in passing the impugned order u/s 263 and that too without providing the opportunity of being heard and in violation of principles of natural justice. 4. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action

Kgvk Agro Limited, Kolkata vs. PCIT, Kolkata-2., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 549/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 549/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Kgvk Agro Limited,..................................Appellant Block-A, 3Rd Floor, Flat-3, 46B, Sridhar Roy Road, Kolkata-700039 [Pan: Aaacu9032H] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Kolkata-2, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Anuj Masaddi, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit (Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 25, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 19, 2024

Section 115BSection 2Section 263Section 68

Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances

M/S. Janardan Parui, 24 Parganas South vs. ACIT, Cir-26(1), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1342/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

examination and satisfaction of the records in accordance with the provisions of law. Needless to say that assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard and present its matter and to make any 3 Janardan Parui, AY 2015-16 further submission as required. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee

Rotary Club of Jadavpur Trust, Kolkata vs. CIT(E), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1126/KOL/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1126/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2023-24 Rotary Club Of Jadavpur Trust Commissioner Of Income Tax 6A, North Road Vs (Exemption), Kolkata Jadavpur Kolkata - 700032 [Pan : Aaatr8066R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Indra, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/02/2024 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 Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(E)”) Dt. 28/08/2023, Rejecting The Registration Under 80G(5)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”). 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That, The Sole Ground On Which The Ld. Cit(E) Has Rejected The Grant Of Registration To The Assessee Trust, Is That The Assessee Did Not Comply With The Hearing Notices Fixing The Hearings On 08/08/2023 & 22/08/2023 & Neither The Assessee File The Necessary Documents As Called For By The Ld. Cit(E). Before Us, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That, The Secretary Of The Assessee Trust, Who Was Entrusted Pursue The Matter Of Registration Was Down With Enteric Fever & Was On Complete Bed Rest On The Advise Of The Attending Physician. Therefore, He Could Not Access

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Indra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R

proper to set aside the issue to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, after giving the assessee sufficient opportunity of being heard. The assessee is directed to file all the documents/evidences in support of its claims. The ld. CIT(E) shall pass a speaking order after