← 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

Durga Properties., Howrah vs. ITO, Ward-46(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 1253/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

that grounds of appeal raised in the instant appeal may be restored to the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. AY: 2011-12 And 2012-13 Durga Properties 3. Per contra, the ld. DR opposed to the request made ... adjudicating afresh by passing a speaking order by considering the submission if any made by the assessee before him after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. In the mean time, we also direct the assessee to remain vigilant and file all necessary supported documents against grounds

Unishire Promoters Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 880/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17 Unishire Promoters Pvt. Ltd. No.42, Cstle Street Ashok Nagar Acit Vs. Bangalore 560 025 Circle-7(1)(1) Karnataka Bangalore Pan No : Aabcu2654G Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Gowi Trasi, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 25.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.01.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of Nfac Dated 12.9.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Ms. Gowi Trasi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 282Section 37

impugned and bad in law as it was passed without providing the appellant with a reasonable opportunity of being heard; 4. That the appellant craves leave, to add, to amend, modify, rescind, supplement, or alter any of the Grounds stated here-in-above, either before or at the time

Somashekhar Virupax Umarami L/H Smt. Latharani . S Umarani, Hubballi vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Hubli

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

ITA 867/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15 Somashekhar Virupax Umarani L/H Smt. Latharani S. Umarani Umarani Annexe Behind Hosur Jain Temple, Ito Vs. Near Chetana Weigh Bridge Ncm Ward-2(4) Hubballi 580 029 Hubli Karnataka Pan No : Aadpu0417E Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Chaitanya V. Mudrabettu, A.R. Respondent By : Shri Subramanian S., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 25.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.01.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of Cit(A) Dated 31.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya V. Mudrabettu, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 271ASection 68Section 69ASection 69B

Assessing Officer has estimated income from House property at Rs. 1,26,000 without any basis. The Assessing officer has not given reasonable opportunity of being heard on this matter. 3. That there is no justification to make addition of Rs. 2,35,33,000/- as un explained cash credit ... r.w.s 115BBE without any basis. Proper opportunity of being heard is not given during assessment u/s 143(3). Somashekhar Virupax Umarani, Hubballi Page 2 of 3 4. That there is no justification to make addition of Rs. 1,30,000/- as un explained cash credit u/s 68 without any basis

Saimaa Technologies LLP, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-14(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3034/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri N. K. Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyal & Saimaa Technologies Llp, 11, Ground Floor, C-Wing, Building No. 1, Kailas Industrial Company, Veer Savarkar Marg, Park Site, Vikhroli (West) Maharashtra -400 079 ...... Appellant

For Appellant: Shri B. V. Jhaveri &For Respondent: Shri Mahesh Parwani, Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

allowed. It is contended by the assessee that this disallowance of foreign tax credit (FTC), CPC, Bengaluru neither assigned any reason nor any opportunity of being heard was given, while observing the documents and submissions, we found this contention to be correct. Although to rectify this intimation, assessee itself filed

Chawala Enterpries, Meerut vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2)(4), Meerut

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 2610/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 69A

decide the appeal afresh on merits after taking into account the material on record, of course, after 4 affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We order accordingly. 6. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes only. Order pronounced in open court

A R Industries, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 175/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraa. R. Industries Vs. Dcit Khasra No. 52/7, Plot No.6 Cpc Village, Pehaladpur, Bengaluru New Delhi -110 042 Pan No. Aaofa 2476 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Amit Goel, C.A. & Shri Pranav Yadav, Adv. Revenue By Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 22.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.01.2024

Section 143(1)Section 80I

order. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in passing order without providing proper opportunity of being heard. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by CIT(A) is against the principles

Rabdi Vibhag Progressive Kelavni Mandal, Valsad vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 797/AHD/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2024

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

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iv)

passed by CIT(E) with a direction to reconsider the From No.10AB for final registration u/s. 80G of the Act by giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee trust. Needless to say the assessee trust should co-operate by furnishing all the required details as mandated under ... passed by Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to reconsider Form 10AB for final registration u/s. 80G of the Act by giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee Trust and also restore the provisional registration already granted to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee Trust should

Nirma Chemical Works Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 487/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2013-14 Nirma Chemical Works Pvt. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Ltd. V. Tax Nirma House Circle-3(1)(1) Ashram Road, Ahmedabad Near Income Tax Circle Gujarat Ahmedabad-380 009 Gujarat Pan: Aaacn 5353 L अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" य "" यथ" "" य "" य थ" थ"/ (Respondent) थ" Assessee By : Shri Hemanshu Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/01/2024 & 23.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Coram: This Appeal Filed By Assessee Is Directed Against The Appellate Order Dated 19/05/2022 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Cit(A)” In Short] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Assessment Year 2013-14 (Din & Order No.Itba/ Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1043081956(1)), The Appellate Proceedings Have Arisen Before Ld.Cit(A) From Rectification Order Dated 16/02/2022 Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer(Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 154 Of The 1961 Act (Din & Order Nirma Chemical Works Pvt. Ltd. V. Dcit Ay 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Hemanshu Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 244ASection 250Section 253(6)(c)Section 253(6)(d)

restored back to the file of ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assesse is directed to co-operate with ld. CIT(A) and furnish all necessary information and documents called for by ld. CIT(A) for adjudication

Vidya Sagar Education Trust, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 427/AHD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2019-20 Vidya Sagar Education Trust The Income Tax Officer Sola Gam Road V. Ward-4(2)(5) Science City Road, Ahmedabad, Gujarat Sola, Ahmedabad – 380 060 Gujarat Pan:Aaatv 2930 L अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" य "" यथ" "" य "" य थ" थ"/ (Respondent) थ" Assessee By : Shri Chirag R.Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Chirag R.Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 167BSection 250

deciding afresh appeal filed by the assessee with ld. CIT(A) on merits in accordance with law, after affording proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to co-operate with Ld.CIT(A) , and submit all the explanations and information sought

Sanjay Kumar Hirachand Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 20 (3(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2659/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Shreyash Shah, Adv. a/wFor Respondent: 09.01.2024 & 23.01.2024
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in passing an ex-parte order in violation of the principles of natural justice without according a reasonable opportunity of being heard.” 6. The ld. AR submitted that the legal grounds raised by the assessee are with regard to the reassessment proceedings initiated

Schott Glass India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ITA 7356/Mum/2014 of the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and ITA No

ITA 7356/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singhschott Glass India Private Vs. Income Tax Officer 8(3)-1 Limited, Dynasty “A” Wing Room No. 201, Aayakar 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai – 400020 Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8583L Appellant .. Respondent Schott Glass India Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Dynasty “A” Wing Income Tax 8(3) 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 204, Aayakar Andheri Kurla Road, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400020 Mumbai – 400 059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8583L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ketan Ved Respondent By : Mahesh Jiwade Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.01.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): Both These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Agasint The Different Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)-15, Mumbai. Since Both These Appeals

For Appellant: Ketan VedFor Respondent: Mahesh Jiwade
Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 92C

done by the Transfer pricing Officer/Assessing Officer 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not granting the Appellant Company sufficient opportunity of being heard before making additions which is opposed to the principles of natural justice and hence is bad in law. 3. The learned Commissioner ... According to it, "the socalled 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

Schott Glass India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T. Circle 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, ITA 7356/Mum/2014 of the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and ITA No

ITA 2594/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singhschott Glass India Private Vs. Income Tax Officer 8(3)-1 Limited, Dynasty “A” Wing Room No. 201, Aayakar 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai – 400020 Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8583L Appellant .. Respondent Schott Glass India Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Dynasty “A” Wing Income Tax 8(3) 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 204, Aayakar Andheri Kurla Road, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400020 Mumbai – 400 059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8583L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ketan Ved Respondent By : Mahesh Jiwade Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.01.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): Both These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Agasint The Different Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)-15, Mumbai. Since Both These Appeals

For Appellant: Ketan VedFor Respondent: Mahesh Jiwade
Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 92C

done by the Transfer pricing Officer/Assessing Officer 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not granting the Appellant Company sufficient opportunity of being heard before making additions which is opposed to the principles of natural justice and hence is bad in law. 3. The learned Commissioner ... According to it, "the socalled 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

Vaaan Infra Private Limited, Haryana vs. Pr, CIT Delhi-7, Delhi

ITA 1102/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: PCIT, Delhi-9, however the order passed by Hon'ble PCIT, Delhi-7 on 30.03.2021.

Section 263Section 56(2)(vib)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 56(25)(viib)

documentary evidences available on record, arbitrary, illegal, against the principles of natural justice and is liable to be deleted. 3. That no proper opportunity of being heard given to the Appellant by Hon'ble PCIT, Delhi-7 wherein the Appellant filed the last submission on 18.06.2020 before Hon'ble PCIT

Sheetal Prop. of Mnc Propmart, Gurgaon vs. JCIT, Range-2, Gurgaon

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

ITA 8980/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

Section 133(6)Section 234B

that this appeal should go back to the file of the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Needless to say, learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) shall provide all the information gathered from the respective Assessing Officers

Netlink Software Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 18(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 6525/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14 Netlink Software Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit G-3, Ground Floor, Circle – 18 (1) Community Centre, C- Delhi Block, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi-110028 Pan No.Aaccn5731A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 250Section 40

therefore, restore the appeal to the files of the CIT(A)-37 to be decided afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 6. Decision announced in the open court

Shri Babubhai Bhimajibhai Mali, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 171/AHD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Babubhai Bhimajibhai The Ito Mali V. Ward-1(2)(1) 120, M.G. Market, Ahmedabad-380015 Shanti Commercial Centre Gujarat Nagar Sheth Ho Vando Gheekanta Ahmedabad – 360 001 Gujarat Pan:Aappm 7611 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "" यथ" "" य थ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" य "" य थ" थ" Assessee By : Shri Prashant Shrivastav, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vipul Chavda,Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Shrivastav, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Chavda,Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250Section 253(3)Section 44ASection 57Section 69C

matter back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) with the direction to pass a reasoned and speaking order after providing reasonable and proper opportunity of being heard . Thus, we set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for fresh ... adjudication of all the issues on merits in accordance with law after affording a proper and adequate opportunity of being heard. We clarify that we have not commented on the merits of the issue in the appeal, and all the contentions are kept open. As a result, assessee’s appeal

B Y K Asia Pacific Private Limited, India Branch, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax(International Taxation), Circle-1, Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 207/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri H. Ananda
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 44B

source u/s. 195 of the Act and consequential disallowance u/s.40(a)(i), if any. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed reasonable opportunity of being heard in such fresh proceedings.” 6. On careful reading of the reproduced portion above, we note that the Tribunal discussed the issue in detail

Alok Agarwaol, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-10(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 986/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

before the bench that grounds raised in the instant appeal may be restored to ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. We have perused the records placed before us going through the grounds raised by the assessee find that ... adjudicating afresh by passing a speaking order after considering the submission made by the assessee for which reasonable opportunity of being heard should be provided. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant to file necessary documents in support of its grounds of appeal and should not take any further

Alok Agarwaol, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-10(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 985/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

before the bench that grounds raised in the instant appeal may be restored to ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. We have perused the records placed before us going through the grounds raised by the assessee find that ... adjudicating afresh by passing a speaking order after considering the submission made by the assessee for which reasonable opportunity of being heard should be provided. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant to file necessary documents in support of its grounds of appeal and should not take any further

Alok Agarwaol, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Kolkata

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

ITA 984/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

before the bench that grounds raised in the instant appeal may be restored to ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. We have perused the records placed before us going through the grounds raised by the assessee find that ... adjudicating afresh by passing a speaking order after considering the submission made by the assessee for which reasonable opportunity of being heard should be provided. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant to file necessary documents in support of its grounds of appeal and should not take any further