← 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

Abhishek Jayketu Joshi, Mumbai vs. Ac Cir-42(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5775/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarabhishek Jayketu Joshi Ac Cir-42(2)(1), C-73, Venus Society, R. G. Kautilya Bhavan, Thadani Marg, Worli Sea Vs. Mumbai-400 051 Face, Mumbai-400 018 Pan/Gir No. Ackpj8583H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri M. M. Golvala, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.01.2026

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

with the show cause notice. It was submitted that such an approach defeats the very object of section 148A, which contemplates a meaningful opportunity of being heard. According to the learned Authorised Representative, merely stating that statements under section 132(4) exist, without furnishing even the relevant extracts thereof, renders ... This approach, in our view, is contrary to the scheme and object of section 148A. The provision contemplates a meaningful and effective opportunity of being heard, which necessarily presupposes that the assessee is made aware of the material on the basis of which the Assessing Officer proposes to initiate reassessment

ACIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Lodha Developers Limited (Formerly Known As Macrotech Developers Limited), Mumbai

ITA 4754/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT

Khimji Lakhamshi Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 30(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the both the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4455/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Prayag JhaFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

furnish supporting evidence in substantiation of its contentions. In the given facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that reasonable opportunity of being heard was not afforded to the assessee. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file ... assessee, and the cash loan of Rs.72,00,000/- was added to the total income of the assessee without granting an effective opportunity of being heard. In our considered view, reasonable opportunity was denied to the assessee. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore

Khimji Lakhamshi Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 41(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result the both the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4454/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Prayag JhaFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

furnish supporting evidence in substantiation of its contentions. In the given facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that reasonable opportunity of being heard was not afforded to the assessee. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file ... assessee, and the cash loan of Rs.72,00,000/- was added to the total income of the assessee without granting an effective opportunity of being heard. In our considered view, reasonable opportunity was denied to the assessee. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore

Sandeep Garg, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 35(5), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes without any order as to cost

ITA 5820/DEL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra[Assessment Years: 2022-23] Sandeep Garg, Income Tax Officer, Kh. No. 73/7, Swatantra Ward-35(5), Nagar, Gali No. 5A, Narela. Vs Civic Centre, North West, Delhi-110040. Delhi. Pan- Aogpg8366K Assessee Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Jain, Ca & Shri Mukul Gupta, Adv. Revenue By Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.01.2026

Section 143(3)

issues raised by the assessee before him within period of 10 months, hence. The Ld. CIT(A) is further directed to grant an opportunity of being heard and to consider the evidence on record or any other evidences which the assessee may choose to file at the time of hearing

Amit Sharma, Delhi vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 5814/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 144Section 147

within period of 10 months from the date of passing of this order. The Ld. AO is further directed to grant an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and consider the evidence on record or any other evidences which the assessee may choose to file at the time

Sh. Amit Sharma, Delhi vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 5813/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 144Section 147

within period of 10 months from the date of passing of this order. The Ld. AO is further directed to grant an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and consider the evidence on record or any other evidences which the assessee may choose to file at the time

Amit Sharma, Delhi vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 5812/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 144Section 147

within period of 10 months from the date of passing of this order. The Ld. AO is further directed to grant an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and consider the evidence on record or any other evidences which the assessee may choose to file at the time

Amit Sharma, Delhi vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 5811/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 144Section 147

within period of 10 months from the date of passing of this order. The Ld. AO is further directed to grant an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and consider the evidence on record or any other evidences which the assessee may choose to file at the time

Rama Pashu Aahar Private Limited, Bulandshahr vs. DCIT -14, Delhi

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

ITA 5806/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

issues raised by the assessee before him within period of 10 months hence. The Ld. CIT(A) is further directed to grant an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and to consider the evidence on record or any other evidences which the assessee may choose to file

Rama Pashu Aahar Private Limited, Bulandshahr vs. DCIT Central Cricle 14, Delhi

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

ITA 5805/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

issues raised by the assessee before him within period of 10 months hence. The Ld. CIT(A) is further directed to grant an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and to consider the evidence on record or any other evidences which the assessee may choose to file

Banarsi Das Gupta HUF, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 43(6), Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2277/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarbanarsi Das Gupta Huf, Vs. Income Tax Officer, B 35, Maharana Pratap Ward-43(6), Enclave, Near Rani Bagh, Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaahb6825L Assessee By : Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv Ms. Ragini Handa, Adv Shri Vaibhav Guta, Adv Revenue By: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/01/2026

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

dated 10-12-2019 with directions to frame the denovo assessment after carrying out appropriate inquiries and granting the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Learned AO passed the second assessment order on 21-3-2023 under section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act literally

Dhimant Jayantilal Kotecha, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(1)(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 928/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot12 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 928/RJT/2025 (Ǔनधा[रणवष[/Assessment Year: (2020-21) Appellant by : Shri Malay Koticha, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date of Hearing : 12/01/2026 Date of Pronouncement : 12/01/2026 ORDER Per.Dr. Arjun Lal Saini (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Malay Koticha, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr
Section 147Section 250

merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. 5. Considering the above facts, I note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). I note that the ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee ... 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 2 Dhimant Jayantilal Kotecha contest his case. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice

Devang Manojbhai Savaliya, Rajkot vs. Ward 2(1)(2), Rajkot

Appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed

ITA 916/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot12 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No. 915 & 916/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-20 & 2020-21 Devang Manojbhai Savaliya Income Tax Officer, Wd – 2(2)(1), Kailash Shiv Shrushti Par, Street No.3, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Pedak Road, Bedipara, Rajkot - 360003 Road, Rajkot - 360003 Pan No.: Gbgps2554J (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Takvani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147

merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. 6. Considering the above facts, I note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). I note that the ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee ... 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 his case. However, on account of non-compliance attitude of the assessee, I impose a cost

Devang Manojbhai Savaliya, Rajkot vs. ITO WD 2(2)(1) Rajkot, Rajkot

Appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed

ITA 915/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot12 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No. 915 & 916/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-20 & 2020-21 Devang Manojbhai Savaliya Income Tax Officer, Wd – 2(2)(1), Kailash Shiv Shrushti Par, Street No.3, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Pedak Road, Bedipara, Rajkot - 360003 Road, Rajkot - 360003 Pan No.: Gbgps2554J (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Takvani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147

merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. 6. Considering the above facts, I note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). I note that the ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee ... 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 his case. However, on account of non-compliance attitude of the assessee, I impose a cost

The Development Multipurpose Credit & Consumers Co-Op So Ltd, Porbandar vs. ITO Ward 2 (4), Porbandar

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

ITA 886/RJT/2025[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot12 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 875, 882 & 886/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2011-12, 2015-16, 2012-13) The Devlopment Multipurpose Credit & Ito Ward-2(4), Consumers Co-Op So Ltd, Vs. Taranjli Building, Jamnagar, Income Karimnagar Society, Nr. Bus Station, Tax Office, Nr. Ambern Cinema, Pt. Ranavav, Gujrat Nehru Marg, Hospital Road, Porbandar – 360550 (Gujrat) Jamnagar - 361008 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaat4332K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147

merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. 5. Considering the above facts, I note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). I note that the ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee ... 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 his case. However, on account of non-compliance attitude of the assessee, I impose a cost

The Development Multipurpose Credit & Consumers Co-Op So Ltd, Porbandar vs. ITO Ward 2 (4), Porbandar

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

ITA 882/RJT/2025[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot12 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 875, 882 & 886/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2011-12, 2015-16, 2012-13) The Devlopment Multipurpose Credit & Ito Ward-2(4), Consumers Co-Op So Ltd, Vs. Taranjli Building, Jamnagar, Income Karimnagar Society, Nr. Bus Station, Tax Office, Nr. Ambern Cinema, Pt. Ranavav, Gujrat Nehru Marg, Hospital Road, Porbandar – 360550 (Gujrat) Jamnagar - 361008 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaat4332K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147

merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. 5. Considering the above facts, I note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). I note that the ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee ... 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 his case. However, on account of non-compliance attitude of the assessee, I impose a cost

The Development Multipurpose Credit & Consumers Co-Op So Ltd, Porbandar vs. ITO Ward 2 (4), Porbandar

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

ITA 875/RJT/2025[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot12 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 875, 882 & 886/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2011-12, 2015-16, 2012-13) The Devlopment Multipurpose Credit & Ito Ward-2(4), Consumers Co-Op So Ltd, Vs. Taranjli Building, Jamnagar, Income Karimnagar Society, Nr. Bus Station, Tax Office, Nr. Ambern Cinema, Pt. Ranavav, Gujrat Nehru Marg, Hospital Road, Porbandar – 360550 (Gujrat) Jamnagar - 361008 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaat4332K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147

merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. 5. Considering the above facts, I note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). I note that the ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee ... 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 his case. However, on account of non-compliance attitude of the assessee, I impose a cost

Dharmendry Sanjay Bhatta, Rajkot vs. ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 620/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपील सं/ .Ita No. 620/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2017-18 बनाम/ Shri Dharmendry Bhatta. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)1 Deep, 41- Anant Nagar Society, Aaykar Bhawan, Race Course Ring Vs Kalawad Road, Road, Rajkot -360005 Rajkot - 360005 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aebpb0458E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Anadi Dixit, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271A(1)(d)Section 272ASection 272A(1)(d)

assessee's explanation, if any, on non-compliance during the course of assessment proceedings. However, no response was received. Further, a fresh opportunity of being heard is given vide penalty show cause notice dated on 27/08/2022 requiring therein the assessee to furnish its explanation if any on or before 03/09/2022

Mithilesh Prasad, Muzaffarpur vs. ITO, Ward- 3 (3), Samastipur

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

ITA 427/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.427/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mithilesh Prasad…………….………………. …………………....Appellant S/O Ram Bhakta Baitha, Damodarpur, Muzaffarpur, Bihar-842001. [Pan: Ankpp5641D] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(3), Samastipur…....……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 08, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 12, 2026 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 01.08.2025 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Dealer Of M/S Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Ioc) & Derives Income From The Sale Of Lpg Cylinders. For The Assessment Year 2017–18, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income Declaring A Total Income Of ₹6,04,460. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Made Various

Section 115BSection 250Section 69A

restored to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to examine the issues afresh on merits, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate fully and furnish all necessary supporting documents. In case of failure to comply with