← 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

Kanchan Vanijya Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1067/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263

make the compliance. Such conduct on the part of the Ld. AO is against the violation of natural justice in providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee for making the impugned assessment and the impugned assessment order passed thereafter is liable to be quashed ... best, in the interest of justice, the matter may be restored to the file of Ld. AO for fresh assessment by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard. 5.1. In the rejoinder, Ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly opposed to proposal of restoring the matter to the file

Covai Sri Vishali Jewellers, Coimbatore vs. Income Tax Officer Non Corporate Ward -1(4), Coimbatore

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

ITA 1298/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Mr.Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1298/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Covai Sri Vishali Jewellers, Income Tax Officer 598-B, Big Bazaar Street, V. Non Corporate Ward -1(4), Coimbatore – 641 001. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aagfc-1063-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. Suraj Nahar, Ca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2024

For Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with the direction to reconsider the issue in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Needless to say, the appellant should file necessary evidences as and when called for by the first appellate authority, without

Karunanithi Krishnaveni, Thiruchengodu vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Namakkal

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

ITA 1250/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Mr.Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 68

merits. Therefore, he submitted that the appeal may be set aside to the file of the CIT(A) to give one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. The ld.DR for the Revenue opposed the request of the ld.counsel for the assessee to set aside the appeal

Sri Bhyraveshwara Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 855/BANG/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jan 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Parithivel, JCIT DR
Section 234BSection 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80p

addition of Rs. 53,13,671/- being disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80p of the act by not giving the assessee sufficient opportunity of being heard. 6. That both the Learned Appellant authority and the Learned Assessing Officer erred in not relying on statements submitted by the assessee

Tata Sons Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3468/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2024AY 2009-10
Section 100Section 263Section 48

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -2 (PCIT) is bad-in-law and illegal and therefore, should be quashed, since having given an opportunity of being heard to the appellant, the PCIT ought not to have expressed any final opinion as regards the merits of the case, (as held ... total income of the assessee company and to direct the ld. AO to disallow the long term capital loss after giving assessee an opportunity of being heard. 4. The brief facts qua the issue involved are that, as on 01/04/2008 the assessee was holder of 288,13,17,286 equity

Sparda Welfare Trust, New Delhi vs. CIT( Exemption), New Delhi

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2583/DEL/2022[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2022-23

Section 12A(1)(ac)

learned CIT(E) to decide the application for registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the documents as admitted above. We order accordingly. 6. Assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open

Mohini Chandani Charitable Trust, New Delhi vs. DDIT(E), Inv. Circle- I, New Delhi

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

ITA 5833/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Baldev Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muneesh Rajani, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 80G

direction to him to adjudicate Page 3 of 4 ITA No.-5833/Del/2017 Mohini Chandani Charitable Trust the revised grounds after allowing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We order accordingly. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

Poonam Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4785/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2005-06 Poonam Promoters & Vs. Acit Developers Pvt. Ltd. M-11, Central Circle- 32 Middle Circle, Connaught E-2, Ara Centre, Circus, New Delhi-110001 Jhandewalan Extension, Pan No.Aaacp6882G New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Piyush Kaushik, Advocate Sh. Ajay Bhagwani, Ca Respondent By Sh. Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 23/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/01/2024 Order Per N. K. Billaiya, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Preferred Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-30, New Delhi Dated 27.03.2015 Pertaining To A.Y. 2005-06. 2. The Grievance Of The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. That The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer & Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxx, New Delhi Are Bad In Law & Void Ab Initio.

Section 1Section 132Section 148Section 153Section 153ASection 153A(1)

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. 4. The appellant craves permission to add, amend, alter or vary all or any grounds 3. The assessee has also raised

Mukesh Trends Lifestyle Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 829/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2018-19 Mukesh Trends Lifestyle Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax N.H. No.8, Narol Naroda V. Circle-2(1)(2) Road Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-382 405 (Gujarat) Pan: Aabcm0500F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "" यथ" "" य थ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" य "" य थ" थ" Assessee By : Shri Vihar Soni, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vipul Chavda, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/01/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Coram

For Appellant: Shri Vihar Soni, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Chavda, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

sent back to the file of AO for fresh adjudication on merits in accordance with law, after giving proper and adequate opportunity of being heard. 5. The Ld.DR, on the other hand, has no serious objection if the matter is restored back to the file of ld. AO for fresh ... restore the matter back to the file of AO for fresh adjudication of matter on merits in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus, the orders of authorities below are set aside. The assessee is also directed to co-operate with

Rajyash Foundation, Ahmedabad vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 817/AHD/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Shri Hasmukh V. Doshi &For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 115TSection 12(1)(ac)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 253Section 80G

rejecting the application filed in form 10AB for registration u/s 12(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 4. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal ... both the parties, we are of the considered view that, in the instant case, the Ld.CIT(A) has not granted proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assesse and principles of natural justice are breached , as the assesse application in Form No. 10AB for grant of registration

Rajyash Foundation, Ahmedabad vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 816/AHD/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Shri Hasmukh V. Doshi &For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 115TSection 12(1)(ac)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 253Section 80G

rejecting the application filed in form 10AB for registration u/s 12(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 4. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal ... both the parties, we are of the considered view that, in the instant case, the Ld.CIT(A) has not granted proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assesse and principles of natural justice are breached , as the assesse application in Form No. 10AB for grant of registration

Bhavin Gunvantbhai Sagar, Ahmedabad vs. Dy.CIT., Circle-2(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 634/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad22 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2017-18 Bhavin Gunvantbhai Sagar The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 501, Madhuram Apartment V. Tax, Nr. Sant Kabir School Circle-2(2)(1) Ahmedabad – 380013 Ahmedabad-380015 Gujarat Gujarat Pan: Ammps 1447 D अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" य "" यथ" "" य "" य थ" थ"/ (Respondent) थ" Assessee By : Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.D.R. सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/01/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Coram This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Appellate Order Dated 21/06/2023 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 2017-18 (Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1053833888(1)), The Appellate Proceedings Have Arisen Before Ld.Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 26/12/2019 Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao") U/S.143(3) Of The 1961 Act (Din & Order No. Itba/Ast/S/143(3)/2019-20/1023131866(1)). Bhavin Gunvantbhai Sagar V. Dcit Ay 2017-18 2

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

NFAC, Delhi has erred in passing an ex Parte order dismissing the appeal of the assessee without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant hence the same being against the principles of natural justice and law requires to be quashed. 2. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi ... file of Ld.CIT(A) with the direction to pass a reasoned and speaking order on merits in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to co-operate with Bhavin Gunvantbhai Sagar v. DCIT AY 2017-18 5 the Ld.CIT(A), and comply

Aaditya Diamgold Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 627/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kambleassessment Year : 2017-18 Aaditya Diamgold Pvt.Ltd. The Income Tax Officer 21, 1St Floor Iscon Arcade V. Ward-1(I)(I) Nr.Lal Bungalows Ahmedabad Cg Road Navrangpura Ahmedabad Gujarat – 380 009 Pan: Aalca 4525 A अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" य "" यथ" "" य "" य थ" थ"/ (Respondent) थ" Assessee By : Shri Parimal Sinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/01/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Ramit Kocharthis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Appellate Order Dated 14/07/2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Cit(A)” In Short] Under Section 250 Of Sub-Section (6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Assessment Year 2017-18 (Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/ 1054374868(1)), The Appellate Proceedings Have Arisen Before Ld. Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2019 Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of Aaditya Diamgold Pvt.Ltd. V. Ito Ay 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Parimal Sinh B. Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 250(6)Section 271ASection 68

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 both the parties before ld. CIT(A). The assessee is directed to co- Aaditya Diamgold Pvt.Ltd. v. ITO AY 2017-18 operate and comply with ... Ld.CIT(A) is directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the issues involved in the appeal, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to both the parties before ld. CIT(A). We clarify that we have not commented on the merits of the issues involved in this appeal

Parameswaran Bashkar, Chennai vs. ITO, International Taxation Ward-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 845/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.845/Chny/2023 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Parameswaran Bashkar, The Income Tax Officer, House Number 784, Voc Layout, Vs. International Taxation Ward-1(1), Vgp Layout, Uthandi, Chennai. Chennai – 600 119. [Pan: Adapb-4101-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ* की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ,-थ* की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 4(6)Section 4(7)Section 54F

Tribunal. The assessee pleaded before the Tribunal that the impugned appeal was decided without giving an opportunity and sought at least one effective opportunity of being heard before the ld. CIT(A). The Hon’ble Tribunal accepted the pleadings of the assessee and vide order dated

Dinesh Sharma, Dholpur vs. ITO Ward 4 Bharatpur, Bharatpur

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

ITA 715/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Pandya (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 69A

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

Texas Instruments (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 995/BANG/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2006-07 M/S. Texas Instrument (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 66/3, Bagmane Tech Park, C. V. Raman Circle – 7(1)(1), Nagar, S. O, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 093. Pan : Aaact 5445 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Ketan Ved, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 18.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Ketan Ved, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 260ASection 4(2)Section 40

direction of the Hon'ble ITAT in the order dated 22 July 2021. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in not granting an opportunity of being heard despite a specific request made in the response dated 6 September 2023 and despite a specific direction of the Hon'ble ITAT

Income Tax Officer, Ward1(1) Hubballi, Hubballi vs. Shri Chatrapati Shivaji Vivododdeshagala Sahakari Niyamita, Haliyal

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objection by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 929/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vinay Kulkarni, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 80P(2)(a)

members of the assessee society to be furnished by the assessee before him. The Ld.AO is also directed to grant an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and to consider the evidence on record or any other evidence which the assessee may choose to file at the time

Dhanya Tmt Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 892/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year :2017-18

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 144

remit the issues in appeal to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh consideration and decision as per law after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to communicate its correct email-id, mobile no. etc. to the department and produce all necessary evidence

Mohammed Masood, Chikmagalur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chikmagalur

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

ITA 1093/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144ASection 69A

filed by the assessee based on the above direction and to consider the claim in accordance with law. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. The assessee may be granted physical hearing in order to justify its claim.” Page ... period and in light of the CBDT instructions, if applicable to the assessee being an agriculturist. The AO is directed to give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue as per law. The assessee is also directed to produce evidence/documents in substantiating his case

Interglobe Aviation Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 12(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3397/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Siddharth, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 4(2)Section 4(6)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 43BSection 5(2)

Aviation Ltd. 1.1 Without prejudice and in specie that on facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred in not granting an opportunity of being heard as settled thereby violating the principals of natural justice. 1.2 Without prejudice and in specie the CIT(A) has erred in exercising discretionary