← 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

Shree Krishna Builders, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result appeal of the assessee M/s Shree Krishna Colonisers in ITA

ITA 96/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 95/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shree Krishna Colonisers V Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax- 0, Nemichand Gali, Ganj Para Ward S Pcit, Raipur-I No.5, Ram Sagar Para, Raipur, 492001, Chhattisgarh Pan: Abffs7335G (Ita No. 96/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shree Krishna Builders Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax- 5/425, Nemichand Gali, Ramsagar Para Pcit, Raipur-I Ward, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Pan: Aacft1716A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) . (""यथ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R. B. Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 14.12.2023 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am:

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 142ASection 143(3)Section 153Section 263Section 69C

interest of the revenue, with the directions to examine the issue afresh and to pass a fresh assessment order, providing proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of Ld. PCIT, now the assessee has preferred the present appeal before ... Section 142A (7) provides that the AO "may" take into account the DVO's report in making assessment, after giving assessee an opportunity of being heard. Since discretion is given to AO, DVO's report is not binding on him. It was held in ACIT vs Mfar Hotels & Resorts

Shree Krishna Colonisers, Raipur vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result appeal of the assessee M/s Shree Krishna Colonisers in ITA

ITA 95/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 95/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shree Krishna Colonisers V Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax- 0, Nemichand Gali, Ganj Para Ward S Pcit, Raipur-I No.5, Ram Sagar Para, Raipur, 492001, Chhattisgarh Pan: Abffs7335G (Ita No. 96/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shree Krishna Builders Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax- 5/425, Nemichand Gali, Ramsagar Para Pcit, Raipur-I Ward, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Pan: Aacft1716A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) . (""यथ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R. B. Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 14.12.2023 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am:

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 142ASection 143(3)Section 153Section 263Section 69C

interest of the revenue, with the directions to examine the issue afresh and to pass a fresh assessment order, providing proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of Ld. PCIT, now the assessee has preferred the present appeal before ... Section 142A (7) provides that the AO "may" take into account the DVO's report in making assessment, after giving assessee an opportunity of being heard. Since discretion is given to AO, DVO's report is not binding on him. It was held in ACIT vs Mfar Hotels & Resorts

Shri Lokendra Panwar, Indore vs. The PCIT (1), Indore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 185/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Lokendra Panwar Pcit (1) 8 B Chandra Nagar, A.B. Indore Vs. Road, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Achpp2073R Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 31.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 14.12.2023

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57(1)

order u/s 263 therefore required to be quashed. ITANo.185/Ind/2023 Lokendra Panwar 2. That the learned CIT(A) erred in not giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. This being denial of natural justice, the order so passed therefore, require to be quashed. 3That the learned CIT(A) erred

Ashwinbhai Labhubhai Jodhani, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Surat

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

ITA 495/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Surat14 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.495/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Ashwinbhai Labhubhai Jodhani, Vs. The Ito, 201, A. V. R. Complex, Ward – 3(3)(1), Shantivan Society, L. H. Road, Surat Surat – 395006, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aeipj0907K (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Appellant By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 14/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 14/12/2023

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

settled law that principles ITA.495/SRT/2023/AY.2015-16 Ashwinbhai Labhubhai Jodhani of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, I restore the matter ... back to the file of Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, I deem it fit and proper to set aside the order

Vitrag Prints, Surat vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 338/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.338/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Vitrag Prints, Vs. The Acit (Osd), K-2619 To 2622, Millenium Ward -1(2)(5), Textile Market Ring Road, Surat. Surat - 395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfv5612L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Jaykishan Goel, Ca Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By 22/09/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 14/12/2023

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 40A(2)(b)

Bank account showing bank entries of your creditors, but it cannot prove the genuine of the transaction. I hereby given an once again opportunity of being heard on dtd. 22.12.2017 to you to file copy of Confirmation, and Copy of return of income of the creditors to prove identity

Ramkrishna Hari Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd, Kandivali West vs. ITO Ward 30(1)(4) (Old) ITO Ward 41(3)(3)(New), Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex

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

ITA 3135/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleramkrishna Hari Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd V. Ito – Ward – 30(1)(4) [Old] Shop No. 47, H Wing, Gokul Nagari No. 2 Ito – 41(3)(3) [New] Dattani Park, Kandivali (E) Kautilya Bhavan Mumbai - 400101 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Aabar1678P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Bhupendra Shah Department Represented By : Shri S.N. Kabra

Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 40Section 80P(2)(a)

JUSTICE: 1.1 The Centralized Processing Center / Income Tax Officer 30 (1) (4), Mumbai ["the A.O."], erred in not granting proper, sufficient and adequate opportunity of being heard to the Appellant while framing the assessment / making the impugned additions. 1.2. It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances

United Phosporus Ltd ( Now Known As Uniphos Enterprises Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 38, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 8387/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2023AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80H

records submitted by the assessee on merit and as per law. It is needless to say that assessee may be given a proper opportunity of being heard. In the result the issue under consideration in ground no 4 is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose ... above decision, we are inclined to direct the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of the assessee after due verification with proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, we are inclined to remit this issue also back to the file of Assessing Officer with the above direction

United Phosphorus Ltd ( Known As Uniphos Enterprises Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 38, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 8375/MUM/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2023AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80H

records submitted by the assessee on merit and as per law. It is needless to say that assessee may be given a proper opportunity of being heard. In the result the issue under consideration in ground no 4 is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose ... above decision, we are inclined to direct the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of the assessee after due verification with proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, we are inclined to remit this issue also back to the file of Assessing Officer with the above direction

United Phosphorus Ltd ( Now Known As Uniphos Enterprises Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 38, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2516/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2023AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80H

records submitted by the assessee on merit and as per law. It is needless to say that assessee may be given a proper opportunity of being heard. In the result the issue under consideration in ground no 4 is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose ... above decision, we are inclined to direct the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of the assessee after due verification with proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, we are inclined to remit this issue also back to the file of Assessing Officer with the above direction

United Phosphorus Ltd (Know Known As Uniphos Enterprises Ltd), Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 38, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3251/MUM/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2023AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80H

records submitted by the assessee on merit and as per law. It is needless to say that assessee may be given a proper opportunity of being heard. In the result the issue under consideration in ground no 4 is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose ... above decision, we are inclined to direct the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of the assessee after due verification with proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, we are inclined to remit this issue also back to the file of Assessing Officer with the above direction

Shiksha Devi, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-28(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 29/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Shiksha Devi, Vs Ito, 7G Sector-8, Jasola, Ward-28(5), New Delhi-110025. New Delhi. Pan-Agnpd3812E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Shanu Khan, Advocate Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 07.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.12.2023

Section 147

case. Therefore, to sub-serve the principle of natural justice, I am of the considered view that the assessee should be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. Thus, the impugned order is hereby, set aside and the assessment is restored to the AO for making assessment afresh after giving adequate ... opportunity of being heard. The assessee is directed not to seek adjournment without any reasonable cause and cooperate in the assessment proceedings. The AO would verify the veracity of the claim made by the assessee regarding source of cash deposited in his saving bank account. Grounds raised by the assessee

Bhagwati Prasad Jaiswal, Indore vs. The ITO-1 (2), Indore

In the result, the appeal of assesse is allowed

ITA 236/IND/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raobhagwati Prasad Jaiswal Ito 1(2) 538, Opp. Bombay Hospital Sai Ujjain Vs. Krapa Colony Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Abjpj 8202 B Assessee By Ms. Ruchira Nerker, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.12.2023

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

erred in observing in the appellate order that the appellant id not furnish any information details during the assessment proceedings even though sufficient opportunity of being heard provided by issuing Page 1 of 11 Bhagwati Prasad Jaiswal Page 2 of 11 notices/ show cause notice ignoring the fact that

Milan Shantilal Mehta, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 2 (5), Thane

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

ITA 2771/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang () & Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 144Section 147

issues contested before us are restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudicating them afresh on merit, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also direct the assessee to fully cooperate with the learned CIT(A) for expeditious disposal of the appeal

Nrusinh Saraswati Yog Chintan Math Trust, Thane vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Thane

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

ITA 2658/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2658/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Nrusinh Saraswati Yog बिधम/ Ito, Exemption Ward, Chintan Math Trust Thane Vs. 16, Narayan Niwas, Opp, Quereshi Mansion, Railway Station, Thane Gokhale Road, Naupada, East, Maharashtra-400603. Near Teen Hath Naka, Thane West-400602. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagts6735E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ramkrishna Lingsur Revenue By: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Trust Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 05.06.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao Denying The Accumulation U/S 11(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) To The Tune Of Rs.10,50,000/- Despite The Fact That The Application For Condonation Of Delay In Filing Form 10 Was Pending Before Ld. Cit(E), Pune.

For Appellant: Shri Ramkrishna LingsurFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. AR)
Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139Section 139(1)

fate of the application for condonation of delay and accordingly pass order in accordance to law. And needless to say, assessee be given opportunity of being heard. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 12/12/2023

Maquet Medical India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6524/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 115O(4)Section 234DSection 250Section 41(1)

Dividend Distribution Tax actually paid by the assessee as per the documentary evidences submitted by the assessee after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is ordered accordingly. 11. Ground No.3 with regard to levy of interest under section 115P of the Act on the amount

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 10(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Maquet Medical India Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5789/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 115O(4)Section 234DSection 250Section 41(1)

Dividend Distribution Tax actually paid by the assessee as per the documentary evidences submitted by the assessee after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is ordered accordingly. 11. Ground No.3 with regard to levy of interest under section 115P of the Act on the amount

J.C.B Welfare Society, Palwal vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Faridabad

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

ITA 2574/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2017-18] J.C.B. Welfare Society, Vs Ito, Near Bagla Nursing Home, Ward-1(3), Agra Chowk, Palwal, Faridabad. Haryana-121102. Pan-Aaaaj7547A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Sweta Bansal, Ca & Shri Sudharshan Roy, Advocate Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 07.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2023

Section 144Section 250Section 69A

circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A), NFAC has erred in passing the impugned order ex-parte, without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard. 1.1 That having passed an ex-parte order the CIT(A), NFAC was not justified in merely upholding the assessment order

Manmohan Singh Bajaj, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-29(1), Delhi

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

ITA 2563/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Manmohan Singh Bajaj, Vs Ito, F-75, First Floor, Kalkaji, Ward-29(1), New Delhi-110019. Delhi. Pan-Aawpb1075G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Vinod Bhatia, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 06.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2023 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi Dated 30.06.2023 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

assessment to the file of AO and set aside the impugned order. The AO would frame the assessment afresh after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly, allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Dharmendra, Sambhal vs. ITO Ward-2(5), Chandausi

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

ITA 2404/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Dharmendra, Vs Cit(A), S/O-Shri Prempal, Village- Nfac, Income Tax Saijna Muslim Gunnaur, Department, Delhi. Sambhal-243722. Pan-Bjkpd6962J Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri K.Sampath & Shri V.Raja Kumar, Advocates Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 06.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2023

Section 144

assessee at the outset, submitted that the assessment order was passed ex-parte to the assessee. The assessee was not given sufficient opportunity of being heard to represent its case. He contended that even before Ld.CIT(A), there was no effective representation on behalf of the assessee. He therefore, prayed ... Authorities. Therefore, to sub-serve the principle of natural justice, I am of the considered view that the assessee should be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. Thus, the impugned order is hereby, set aside and the assessment is restored to the AO for making assessment afresh after giving adequate

Munesh Devi, Greater Noida vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 347/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) passed the combined order for A.Y.2010-11, 2011-12, 2014-15 and 2016-17 and a separate order for AY 2015-16 on 12.07.2018 by dismissing the appeals filed by the assessee. The Assessee preferred the above appeals.

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 68

case, the learned assessing officer has erred both on facts and in law in making the addition without providing the proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard and violative of principles of Natural Justice. 7. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal ... case, the learned assessing officer has erred both on facts and in law in making the addition without providing the proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard and violative of principles of Natural Justice. 9. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal