← 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

Kasturbhai A. Patel, Sabarkantha vs. The ITO, Ward-4, Himatnagar

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

ITA 990/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 990/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16)

For Respondent: Shri V. K. Mangla, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 249Section 250Section 69A

file of the Ld. AO for adjudication of the issue afresh on merit and to pass a reasoned order upon granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and considering the evidence on record or any other evidence which the assessee may choose to file at the time

Value 4 Money Financial Services, Vadodara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(3), Vadodara (Now ITO, Ward 3(1)(4), Vadodara)

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

ITA 946/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 946/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17)

For Respondent: Shri V. K. Mangla, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, the order impugned, from where it reflects that no proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant was given, and therefore, in order to prevent the miscarriage of justice, we set aside the issue to the file ... considering the same afresh on merit and to pass a reasoned order upon granting an opportunity of being heard to the ITA No. 946/Ahd/2023 (Value 4 Money Financial Services. vs. ITO) A.Y.– 2016-17 - 3 – assessee and considering the evidence on record or any other evidence which the assessee

Shrenik Hiralal Shah, Vadodara, Gujarat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Vadodara, Gujarat

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

ITA 1130/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Shrenik Hiralal Shah The Asstt.Cit 5/A Vrundavan Bungalows Vs Circle-1(1)91) Near Mathura Nagari, Tandalja Vadodara Vadodara -390 020 Gujarat, India Pan: Apnps 0058 Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms.Amrion Pathan, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Makwana, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07/02/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Ms. Suchitra Kamblethis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31/10/2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Cit(A)” In Short] For Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:

For Appellant: Ms.Amrion Pathan, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Makwana, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 24Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 50C(2)

passing the order ex-parte. 2) The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in passing the order without granting proper opportunity of being heard. 3) The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the learned assistant Commissioner of Income

Divyeshkumar L.Kachhiya, Anand vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anand

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

ITA 1065/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1065/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Divyeshkumar L. The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Kachhiya Ward-1, Anand Vs. Bhat Pipli, Umreth, Anand Gujarat, 388220 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Bqfpk5153G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri M. K. Patel, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. K. Mangla, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/02/2024 14/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.10.2023 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Arising Out Of The Order Dated 28.11.2018 Passed By The Ito, Ward-3, Anand, Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 3 Days. Considering The Merit Of The Matter, We Condone The Delay In Preferring Such Appeal Before Us.

For Respondent: Shri V. K. Mangla, Sr. DR
Section 147

been heard by the Revenue authorities as it is evident on record and in that view of the matter, we find further opportunity of being heard to the appellant be given. Thus, in order to prevent the miscarriage of justice, we set aside the issue to the file ... considering the issue afresh on merit and to pass a reasoned order upon granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and considering the evidence on record or any other evidence which the assessee may choose to file at the time of hearing of the matter

Jagdishchandra Kantilal Trivedi, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-5(2)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2273/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

Assessing Officer is hereby set aside with a direction to pass fresh assessment order in accordance with law by providing further opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee should co-operate by producing all required details before the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for passing fresh assessment

Srinivas Cheedara, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-9(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 669/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad14 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.669/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Srinivas Cheedara Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 9(4) Pan:Aeapc3856J Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri S. Mookambikeyan, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Ex-Parte Order Dated 25.10.2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)- Nfac Delhi Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Ex-Parte Order Of The Learned Cit (A) Nfac In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.53,41,600/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 69A R.W.S.115Bbe Of The I.T. Act Being The Cash Deposits In The Bank Account As Unexplained Money.

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri S. Mookambikeyan, DR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

Bank Account by producing the relevant details. The Assessing Officer shall decide the issue as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also Page 4 of 5 ITA No 669 of 2023 Srinivas Cheedra Hyderabad hereby directed to participate

Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(1), Hyderabad vs. Dhobba Madhavi, Hyderabad

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue and the C

ITA 614/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad14 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.614/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Income Tax Officer Vs. Smt. Dhobba Madhavi, Ward 8(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Cqspm2066A C.O No.1/Hyd/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.614/Hyd/2023 (A.Y 2017-18) (Appellant) (Respondent) Smt. Dhobba Madhavi, Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 8(1) Pan:Cqspm2066A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr िनधा""रती "ारा /Assessee By:: Shri P. Prasad, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-. This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.11.2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac, Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Also Filed The Cross Objection Against The Appeal Filed By The Revenue. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: : Shri P. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

cash deposits by producing the relevant details. The Assessing Officer shall decide the issue as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to participate in the assessement proceedings and file the requisite details failing which the Assessing

Anil Kumar Tanwar, Bhiwadi vs. ITO Bhiwadi, Bhiwadi

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

ITA 36/JPR/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Nfac/ Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), But The Nfac Has Failed To Consider It & Passed The Order On Dated 20.11.2023 & Dismiss The Appeal Which Deserved To Be Accepted.

For Appellant: Sh. P C Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

lower authorities we are of the considered view that the assessing officer should hear the assessee’s submission on merits after affording proper opportunity of being heard and pass speaking order in the matter in accordance with the law. At the same time assessee is directed to represent and present

Luv Jit Jalan, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 103/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18 Luv Jit Jalan No.28 & 29, Ground Floor Arihant Plaza, Kamaraj Road Ito Vs. Bangalore 560 042 Ward-1(2)(3) Karnataka Bangalore Pan No.Ailpj5661P Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prashanth G.S., A.R. Revenue By : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth G.S., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 115BSection 250Section 69Section 69ASection 80C

suffers from want of application of principles of natural justice in so far as the learned CIT(A) did not provide sufficient opportunity of being heard under the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Addition of cash deposits into bank as unexplained money under section

Unique Clothing Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-27(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2365/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. M. P. Rastogi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 154(3)Section 155Section 156Section 186

intention so to do and has allowed the assessee 2 Unique Clothing Pvt. Ltd. or the deductor or the collector a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (4) Where an amendment is made under this section, an order shall be passed in writing by the income-tax authority concerned. (5) Where

Leapfrog, Gulmohar Park vs. ITO, Ward 29(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1774/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaleapfrog, Vs. Ito, Ward 29 (1), A-14, Third Floor, New Delhi. Gulmohar Park, New Delhi – 110 049. (Pan : Aaatl3565D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nitin Kanwar, Advocate Shri Rajeev Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.01.2024 Date Of Order : 14.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Kanwar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 271(1)(c)Section 3

matter is remanded to the file of ld. CIT (A). Ld. CIT (A) shall pass a speaking order after giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.. Order pronounced in the open court on this

Sanjay Kumar, Ireland vs. ACIT, Int.Taxation, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1479/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Tanya, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 15Section 270ASection 5Section 5(2)Section 6Section 9Section 9(1)(ii)

bank interest. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. DRP/AO has erred in not granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant and thus violated the principles of natural justice while making the additions to the returned income; 6. That

Panna Lal Om Prakash Jewellers, Delhi vs. Pr, CIT, Delhi-10, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 416/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms Astha Chandrapanna Lal Om Prakash Jewellers, Vs. Pr. Cit, C/O. Anil Jain Dd &Co. 611, New Delhi Surya Kiran Building, 19, Kg Marg, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaafp4412F

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

PCIT Delhi-10 has erred in passing the order u/s 263 Panna Lal Om Prakash Jewellers without giving proper opportunity of being heard and hence the order passed u/s 263 is against the principle of natural justice and requires to be quashed. 3. That on the facts and circumstances

Indus Education Society, Lakhanpur vs. Addl.CIT (Exemption) Range, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 5399/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: the AO.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

about the service of notice under section 143(2) of the Act. Needless to mention, learned CIT(A) shall provide due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 14th February

Rajeev Devidas Nadkarni, Sindhudurg vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Kudal, Kudal

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

ITA 57/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Hon.(Through Virtual Hearing) Rajeev Devidas Nadkarni, Vs Ito, Ward-Kudal, At Galel, Post Banda, Taluka Kudal. Sawantwadi, Dist.Sindhudurg, Sindhudurg, Maharashtra. Pan: Ahapn 2937 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kumar Kale, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ganesh B. Budruk, Dr Date Of Hearing : 12/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/02/2024

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Kale, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

aside and remand the matter back to his file for de novo disposal in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open Court on 13th February

Udayagiri Laprosy Eradication and Rehabilitation Sanstha, Udgir vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 936/PUN/2023[-]Status: HeardITAT Pune13 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripotevirtual Hearing आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.936/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : N.A. Udayagiri Laprosy Eradication The Commissioner Of & Rehabilitation Sanstha, V Income Tax, Exemption, 11, Shivaji Society, Udgir, S Pune. Dist.Latur, Udgir – 413517. Pan: Aaatu8923C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Shubham Rathi – Ar(Virtual) Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshair – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 13/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed Electronically I.E.E-Filed & All Documents On System.

Section 12ASection 2(15)

application made in Form 10AB under section 12A( 1 )(ac)(iii) and cancelling provisional registration by not granting proper, sufficient and adequate opportunity of being heard to the Appellant while framing assessment. 1.2 While doing so, the Ld. CIT(E) failed to appreciate that as per the principles of natural ... justice, providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee is mandatory before passing the adverse order. 1.3 In the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed to set aside the order passed by the CIT(E). 2. ERRED IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION IN FORM 10AB

Pune Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Circle Pune, Pune

ITA 561/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Pune13 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Prathmesh BorkarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari, CIT (DR)
Section 10(46)Section 129Section 143(3)

facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment order is bad in law as the assessee was not provided a proper opportunity of being heard. The learned assessing officer failed to provide the assessee with a personal hearing in spite of a specific request by the assessee

Pune Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Circle Pune, Pune

ITA 560/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Pune13 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Prathmesh BorkarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari, CIT (DR)
Section 10(46)Section 129Section 143(3)

facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment order is bad in law as the assessee was not provided a proper opportunity of being heard. The learned assessing officer failed to provide the assessee with a personal hearing in spite of a specific request by the assessee

Tulsidas Kanayalal Soneji, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, 8(3), Pune

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

ITA 1437/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Hon.Tulsidas Kanayalal Soneji, Vs Ito, Ward-8(3), A-1 Market, Sai Chowk, Pune. Pimpri, Pune- 411018. Pan: Abzps 0978 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare, Adv., Revenue By : Shri Ganesh B. Budruk, Dr Date Of Hearing : 12/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/02/2024 Order

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa Khare, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk, DR
Section 148Section 194ASection 194lSection 69A

order is set aside and remand the matter back to the file of NFAC for denovo 2 Tulsidas Kanayalal Soneji consideration after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open Court

Nanjappa Gounder Palanisamy, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-3(2), Coimbatore

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

ITA 1227/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1227/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Shrenik Chordia, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

lacks knowledge in operating his e-mail ID and prayed that the assessee may be afforded an opportunity of being heard to substantiate his case before the ld. CIT(A). 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the orders of authorities below. 7. We have heard both ... Under the above facts and circumstances, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and direct him to afford one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee to substantiate his case. The assessee is also directed to furnish complete details to substantiate his case before