“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

Ibg (India) P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 12(1), New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 965/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(2)

matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) to decide the matter afresh, in accordance with law, of course, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. 6. The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes only. Order pronounced in open court on 27th September

Sachin Kumar, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward 2(2)(4), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 2041/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Sachin Kumar, Vs Ito, C/O-P Kumar Jain & Co., Ward-2(2)(4), 210, Durga Tower, A-13, Rdc, Ghaziabad. Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201001 Pan-Asbpk3946N Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Anurag Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.09.2023 Date Of 27.09.2023 Pronouncement Order

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

believe and/or satisfaction of Ld. A.O. or of the superior authority to conduct roving enquiries merely on the basis of AIR. 3. Proper opportunity of being heard has not been provided to the appellant. No notice was received by the appellant. 4. Without prejudice and in alternative ... fact the appellant withdrawn the cash on various dates during the year which was later on deposited in the bank account. Proper opportunity of being heard not provided to the appellant hence it is liable to be remanded back. 5. The appellant craves leave to add or amend any ground

Anand Duplex Ltd, Meerut vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Meerut

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

ITA 1198/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Advocate

Section 143(3)

view that this appeal should go back to the file of the ld. CIT (Appeals) for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. This appeal is restored to the file of the ld. CIT (Appeals). I.T.A. No. 1198/Del/2023 5. In the result, the appeal

Unnati Jan Kalyaan Shikshan Samiti, Raipur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Bhopal

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 279/RPR/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.278 & 279/Rpr/2023 Unnati Jan Kalyaan Shikshan Samiti V The Commissioner Of Income Tax H. No.3, Om Bhawan, Avanti Vihar, S (Exemption), Bhopal (M.P) Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aabtu0915H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Praveen Goyal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Debashis Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Lahiri, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 80G

light of the evidence /information/explanation /submission of the assessee. We order accordingly. Needless to say, the Ld. CIT(Exemption) shall grant reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee who shall remain at liberty to substantiate its claim on the basis of supporting documentary evidence. The assessee is also directed

Unnati Jan Kalyaan Shikshan Samiti, Raipur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Bhopal

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 278/RPR/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Sept 2023

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Lahiri, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 80G

M/S Swastik Estate, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 178/RPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.178/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Swastik Estates V The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Office No.301 To 304, 3Rd Floor, S Raipur-1 Subham Corporate, Telibandha, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Adkfs8832R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S. K. Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Meena, CIT-DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40Section 43B

direction to pass a fresh re- assessment order in a speaking manner after making all necessary enquiries and after providing due and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after considering all the submissions made and counter reply filed by the assessee in a fair and judicious manner ... pass a fresh re- assessment order in a speaking manner after making all necessary enquiries and after providing due and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after considering all the submissions made and counter reply filed by the assessee in a fair and judicious manner

Bhawna Bafna, Jagdalpur, Bastar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Jagdalpur, Bastar

ITA 250/RPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Bhawna Bafna Vs The Income Tax Officer C/O. Shri Rekhchand Bafna, Jagdalpur Gurudwara Road, Moti Talab Para, Chhattisgarh-494 001 Pan: Amipb4641C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.B Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

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

justified. 2 3. Without prejudice to above grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing order without providing due and proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 4. The appellant reserves the right to add, amend or alter any of the ground/s of appeal.” 2. Brief facts in this

Shri Surendrakumar Fulchand Jain, Gandhidham-Kutch vs. The ITO, Ward-2, Gandhidham, Gandhidham-Kutch

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

ITA 3/RJT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

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

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

reopening the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act. Ground no. 4 The learned AO has erred in not providing the appellant adequate opportunity of being heard Ground no. 5 The learned AO has erred in rejecting the books of accounts u/s 145(3) of the Act and estimating ... Surendra Fulchand Jain Vs. ITO 4. The learned CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in confirming addition of Rs.20,15,904/- without providing adequate opportunity of being heard Appellate. 5. The learned CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in confirming addition of Rs.20,15,904/- by confirming the rejection of books

Rajeshbhai P . Mangukiya, Surat vs. PCIT-1, Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal No

ITA 341/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.333 & 341/Srt/2023 (Ays 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Nayan Dhanjibhai Mangukiya 14, Rugved Bungalows, L P Savani Road, Adajan, Surat-395 009 Principal Commissioner Of [Pan Alppm 6978 B] Income-Tax-1, Surat, Aaykar Vs Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- Rajesh Parsottambhai Mangukiya 395001 15, Rugved Bungalows, L P Savani Road, Adajan, Surat-395009 [Pan Ahopp 2114 P] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 56(2)(x)

pass fresh assessment order after taking into account the issue has already been considered together with the issue discussed by him by giving opportunity of being heard to assessee. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. PCIT passed on 13.03.2023 the assessee filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have

Nayan Dhanjibhai Mangukiya, Surat vs. PCIT-1, Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal No

ITA 333/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 56(2)(x)

Shri Madhusudan Rayons Private Limited, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat

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

ITA 321/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.321/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Shri Madhusudan Rayons Pvt. Ltd Deputy Commissioner Of 283, Laxminarayan Industrial Vs. Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Estate, N.H. 08, Palsana, Surat- Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Gate, 394317 Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcm 4738 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca िनधा"रती की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing 21/09/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 27/09/2023

Section 143(3)

note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest its case. Accordingly, we set aside the order of NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) and restore the issue back to the file

Shyam Mitra Mandal Jogbani Trust Khatuhyam Ji Jila Sikar, Sikar vs. ITO, Ward-1, Sikar

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

ITA 415/JPR/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2023AY 2022-23

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Choudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)

Section 10Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee in both the appeals mainly submitted that the assessee was not provided adequate opportunity of being heard by the ld. CIT(E) and thus both the orders should be quashed being against the principles of natural justice. 4. Per contra ... mention that during the course of hearing the ld. AR of the assessee prayed that he was deprived off availing of adequate opportunity of being heard by the ld. CIT(E) in both the orders (supra). The Bench does not want to go into merit of the case

Shyam Mitra Mandal Jogbani Trust Khatushyam Ji Jila Sikar, Sikar vs. ITO, Ward-1, Sikar

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

ITA 414/JPR/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2023AY 2022-23

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Choudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)

Section 10Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

Surjit Kaur, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 4(3), Jpr, Jaipur

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

ITA 401/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 3Section 68

dismissed appeal ex-parte and without dealing with the merits of the case, though assessee was given four opportunity of being heard. Before us the ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessee being lady has reason for such ex-parte order stating that ... facts, 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, therefore, the matter is set aside to the file of the learned assessing officer with a direction

Gillette India Limited, Spa-65A, Industrial Area, Bhiwadi, District- Alwar vs. PCIT, Jaipur-1, Jaipur

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

ITA 313/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. ParwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 192Section 194Section 195Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

proposed to modify the order u/s. 263 of the Act and 13 Gillette India Ltd vs. PCIT therefore, the assessee was given an opportunity of being heard to the assessee vide notice dated 28.02.2023 generated on the ITBA. The assessee filed the reply dated 09.03.2023 and on perusal

Modern Public Vikas Samiti Tonk, Tonk vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

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

ITA 276/JPR/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2023AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA Nos. 276 & 275/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Year :- Modern Public Vikas Samiti Mohalla Shorgaran Subhash Bazar, Tonk – 304 001 cuke Vs. The CIT (Exemption) Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABAM 1303 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT-DR

Section 12Section 12ASection 80G

course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee in both the appeals mainly submitted that the assessee was not provided adequate opportunity of being heard by the ld. CIT(E) and thus both the orders should be quashed being against the principles of natural justice. 3.4. Per contra ... mention that during the course of hearing the ld. AR of the assessee prayed that he was deprived off availing of adequate opportunity of being heard by the ld. CIT(E) in both the orders (supra). The Bench does not want to go into merit of the case

Shri Ravi Ramakrishnan, Mumbai vs. International Tax Ward 4(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid directions

ITA 646/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.646/मुं/2023 (िन.व.2014-15) Ravi Ramakrishnan, 205/404, Khar Rose Minar Building, 4Th Floor, 10Th Road, Khar (West, Mumbai 400 052 Pan: Anwpr-2793-J ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. International Tax Ward 4(1)(1), Room No.1729, 17Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Ms. Anushree Gupta "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Shri Anil Sant सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2023 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 26/09/2023 आदेश आदेश/ Order आदेश आदेश Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 10/01/2023 Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [ In Short ‘The Act], For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds In Appeal: “ The Following Grounds Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In The Law, The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer ('Ld. Ao') Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) / Directions Passed By The Hon'Ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('Drp') Under 2 Section 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act1) Is Bad, Both In The Eye Of Law & On The Facts On Account Of:

For Appellant: Ms. Anushree GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant

Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 49(4)Section 56(2)(vii)

email dated 7 December 2022, 10 December 2022, and 13 December 2022. (ii) The Hon'ble DRP has erred in not providing an opportunity of being heard. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP has erred in confirming the variation proposed ... December 2022 before the Hon'ble DRP on account of Appellants submissions not being considered in the DRP Directions and not providing opportunity of being heard. 5. The Appellant craves leave to add, to amend, to alter, to withdraw, to modify and / or to substitute any or all the foregoing

M/S Vinayak Textrade Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2147/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S. Vinayak Textrade Vs. Dcit, Cc 6(1) Pvt. Ltd. 1905, 19Th Floor, 601, Annapurna Heights, Air India Building, Ramchandra Lane, Nariman Point, Malad(W) Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400064 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aafcv1470R Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Ankush Kapoor

Section 143(1)Section 145(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 250(6)

parte order P a g e | 2 ITA No. 2147/Mum 2023 AY 2016-17 M/s Vinayak Textrade Pvt. Ltd. without granting sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred

Late Shri Shashi Bhushan Bajpai, Mumbai vs. ITO-23(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1582/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Sathe Ld. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Anurag Tripathi, Ld. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard through video-conferencing as well, as requested by the Assessee as per the provisions of Rule 12(3) of Faceless Scheme

Rajkumar, New Delhi vs. ITO, Circle-5(3)(1), Noida

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

ITA 1228/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

grievance of the assessee is that NFAC erred in confirming the assessment by an ex-parte order without affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard. Page 1 of 4 ITA No.-1228/Del/2023 Rajkumar 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee inspite of notice. We decided ... appeal to the files of the CIT(A) / NFAC with the direction to decide the appeal afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Page