← 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

Plutus Infrastructure Ltd, Patna vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Patna

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

ITA 30/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.30/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Plutus Infrastructure Ltd.………………. …………………....Appellant 310, N P Centre, New Dak Bunglow Road, Patna- 800001.. [Pan: Aadcp2152Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), Patna……..…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri D. V. Pathy, Sr. Adv. Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 07, 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 29.02.2024 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate Development & Construction. For The Assessment Year 2015–16, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring A Total Income Of ₹83,028. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Estimated The Net Profit At The Rate Of 8% On Undisclosed Sales & Accordingly Made An Addition Of ₹17,71,120. In Addition Thereto, An Addition Of ₹5,60,000 Was Made

Section 250Section 43C

dismissed solely on account of non-appearance of the assessee, without adjudication on merits. The assessee was thus deprived of a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In our considered opinion, in the interest of justice and fair play, the matter deserves to be restored to the file of the I.T.A ... No.30/Pat/2025 Plutus Infrastructure Ltd Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the entire issue is remanded back to the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to examine the matter afresh in accordance with law and after

Naresh Chandra Mallick, Swarupnagar vs. ITO, Ward 49(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2615/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2615/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2019-2020) Naresh Chandra Mallick, Vs Ito, Ward-49(1), Kolkata C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson,1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 Pan No. :Alzpm 8999 A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.09.2025 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2019-2020. 2. It Was The Submission That Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Ex-Parte. It Was Also Submitted That The Assessee May Be Given One More Opportunity To Represent Its Case Before The Ld. Cit(A), So That The Assessee Could Be Able To Provide The Details Before The Ld. Cit(A) To Substantiate Its Case. 3. In Reply, Ld. Sr.Dr Supported The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A) & The Ld. Ao. 4. I Have Considered The Rival Submissions. A Perusal Of The Para 4 Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Clearly Shows That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Issued Notices However, The Assessee Could Not Furnish Any Details To Substantiate His

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Sr. DR

issues in this appeal are restored to the file of ld CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue afresh after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee is directed to cooperate in the readjudication proceedings positively. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Kamlesh Singh, Kolkata vs. I.T.O. Ward-4(30, Kolkata

ITA 2459/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan

Section 143(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "SMC" BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No.2459/KOL/2025 Kamlesh Singh Vs

Suvasis Panja, Durgachak Haldia vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 27(1) Haldia, Haldia

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 915/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.915/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year. :2017-2018) Suvasis Panja, Vs Ito Ward-27(1), Haldia C/O Atin Das Advocate, Daharpur Tamluk Purba Medinipur West Bengal-721636 Pan No. : Ajhpp 6824 F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/01/2026

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Sr. DR
Section 44A

case, the issues of this appeal are restored to the file of the ld. AO for readjudication afresh after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. 8. In result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court

State Bank of India Nalikul Branch, Nalikul vs. Income Tax TDS Ward 2(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 2691/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Sr. DR
Section 10(5)Section 156Section 201Section 201(1)

treated as an assessee in default. 8. Without prejudice to the above, the learned TDS Officer and CIT(A) has not given opportunity time to heard the assessee and passed the order in hurry raising the demand under section 201 and CIT(A) upheld the previous order just on written ... order, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of 4 ld.AO for re-adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 12/01/2026

Sundaram Subramanian Rep. by Legal Heir S Sundaram, Pudukkottai vs. ITO, Circle-2(1), Trichy

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2420/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T
Section 147Section 148Section 251Section 68

given hereunder: “i. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in substituting the charging provision from Section 68 to Section 69A without providing specific opportunity of being heard on this new ground, in violation of Section 251(2) of the Act and the principles of natural justice. :-4-: ITA. Nos:2419 & 2420/Chny/2025 ... unbridled. Section 251(2) mandates that no enhancement or modification prejudicial to the assessee shall be made without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In the present case the assessee was never put to notice that the addition proposed u/s.68 would be sustained u/s.69A of the Act, the nature

Sundaram Subramanian, Pudukkottai vs. ITO, Circle-2(1), Trichy

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2419/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T
Section 147Section 148Section 251Section 68

given hereunder: “i. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in substituting the charging provision from Section 68 to Section 69A without providing specific opportunity of being heard on this new ground, in violation of Section 251(2) of the Act and the principles of natural justice. :-4-: ITA. Nos:2419 & 2420/Chny/2025 ... unbridled. Section 251(2) mandates that no enhancement or modification prejudicial to the assessee shall be made without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In the present case the assessee was never put to notice that the addition proposed u/s.68 would be sustained u/s.69A of the Act, the nature

Flourish Techno & Real Estate Private Limited, R T Nagar, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer- Ward 3(1)(1), ITO, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2435/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

appellant's case. The appellant humbly submits that the appeal be admitted, and the matter be adjudicated in fair and judicious manner and opportunity of being heard be afforded to meet the ends of justice.” 2. The appeal has been filed with a delay of 474 days and the assessee

Chandulal Navjibhai Patel, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 28(1)(1), Mumbai, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 8372/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Us, It Has Been Stated On Behalf Of The Assessee That The Notices Issued By The Learned Cit(A) Could Not Be Effectively Received, As A Result Of Which The Assessee Remained Unrepresented & Was Deprived Of An Opportunity To Place Its Case On Merits. It Was Thus Submitted That The Appellate Order Came To Be Passed Without Affording Due & Meaningful Opportunity Of Hearing, Thereby Resulting In Serious Prejudice To The Assessee.

Section 147Section 69C

restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication afresh in accordance with law, after granting due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 3 Chandulal Navjibhai Patel 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made and have perused the material available on record

Nilesh Pravinchandra Doshi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 42(1)(3), Mumbai, Maharashtra

ITA 8368/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarnilesh Pravinchandra Ito Ward 42(1)(3), Doshi Kautilya Bhavan, B/29, Pushpanjali Vs. Bandra Kurla Building, Jambli Gully, Complex, Bandra Borivali West, Mumbai- East, 400 092 Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No. Amcpd6391D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Jay Shah, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.01.2026

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

relevant records of the earlier year and shall decide the issue afresh in accordance with law. The assessee shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard and shall cooperate by furnishing the necessary details. The ground raised by the assessee on this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Laxmanaram Ganchi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 8359/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 115Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits in accordance with law, after affording due and effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7 Laxmanaram Ganchi 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

Anirudh Bhimjibhai Dudhat, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Circle 42(1)(1), Bandra Kurla Complex

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

ITA 7346/MUM/2025[2014-2015]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makrand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

additional evidences furnished by the 5 Anirudh Bhimjibhai Dudhat, Mumbai. assessee, the responses received under section 133(6), and after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee as well as to the Assessing Officer. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) shall pass a speaking and reasoned order in accordance with

Jagram Tegiram Yadav, Mumbai vs. Ward 41.1.2, Mumbai

ITA 7149/MUM/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

Section 147Section 148Section 69C

fair and justified manner. ITA No. 7149/Mum/2025 Jagram Tegiram Yadav 10. Needless to say, the assessee shall be provided with reasonable opportunity of being heard in the set-aside delay proceedings. The assessee also needs to be vigilant and complaint enough to respond to the notices issued under section

Sanjay Narendra Bansal, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 8(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7123/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250

impugned order dated 29.05.2023 under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") without affording the Appellant a proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard. The ex-parte order was passed without issuing notices to the email ID provided in Form 35. The Appellant was denied the right ... with one more opportunity to the assessee to represent its case. 9. Needless to say, the assessee shall be provided with reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to comply with the notices issued under section 250 in the set aside proceedings, without any fail, else

S R Jewels, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 34(3)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 5938/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2009-10 S R Jewels, Income Tax Officer, 33, B J Industrial Estate, Ward-34(3)(5), Moti Udyog Bhavan, Vs. 126, Kautilya Bhavan, Kanchpada, Bandra Kurla Complex, Malad West, Bandra East, Mumbai-400064. Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aayfs8159E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri R.C. Modi / Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke For Revenue : Ms. Nidhi Agarwal, Sr.Dr (Virtually Present) Date Of Hearing : 04-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-01-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri R.C. Modi /For Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Agarwal, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 69Section 69C

unpolished diamond. In view of the same, the matter was restored to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication after due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. In light of the directions of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal for de novo adjudication, notice

Shiva Ramprasad Nirmal, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Thane

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

ITA 5080/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2020-21 Shiva Ramprasad Nirmal, Office Of The Income Tax E-2/202 Gaurav City, Beverly Officer Ward 2(1), Park, Mira Bhayander Road, Vs. Asher It Park, 6Th Floor, Mira Road East, Thane, Road No. 16Z, Wagle Maharashtra – 401107. Industrial Estate, Thane Pan – Adtpn8556A West, Thane – 400604. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Smt. Usha Gaikwad, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.06.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2020-21. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessee Had Declared Total Income Of Rs.5,81,630/- By Filing His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration, Which Was Selected For E-Verification Scheme 2021 As Per The Provision Of Section 135 (A) Of The Act. During The Verification, It Was Found That The Assessee Has Not Responded To The Notices Issued, Except Seek Adjournment & As Per The 2 Shiva Ramprasad Nirmal

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Usha Gaikwad, SR. D.R
Section 135Section 147Section 148Section 194Section 250Section 44A

before the Assessing Officer. 7. As per Ld. Commissioner, the Assessee has sent a reply stating “gathering of documents” and despite allowing numerous opportunity of being heard and video conference three occasions, the Assessee failed to provide any supporting evidence except related to the amount of Rs.1,41,600/- only ... Officer {JAO} for decision afresh, suffice to say by considering the documents to be filed as filed before this Court and affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 14. The Assessee is also directed and thus undertakes to file before the JAO, the relevant documents, as demanded

Red Hat India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3853/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 254Section 92C

direct the Assessing Officer to verify the claims of the assessee on the basis of evidence placed on record and after affording due opportunity of being heard. If the claims are found to be in accordance with law, the same shall be granted. These grounds are allowed for statistical purposes

Nih Sahay Utthansamiti, Madhubani vs. Income-Tax Officer (Exemption), Muzaffarpur

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

ITA 96/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16
Section 11Section 12ASection 250

filed the present appeal before the Tribunal raising various grounds. One of the principal grounds taken by the assessee is that no proper opportunity of being heard was provided by the CIT(A), as no specific notice was issued and no explanation was called for before passing the appellate order ... restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to examine the matter afresh on merits, after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to comply with the notices and cooperate in the appellate proceedings. In case of non-compliance

Rekha Gupta, Motihari vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Muzaffarpur

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

ITA 81/PAT/2025[1991-92]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Jan 2026AY 1991-92

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.81/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 1991-92 Rekha Gupta………..………….………………. …………………....Appellant Balua Tal, Motihari, East Champaran, Bihar-845401. [Pan: Adkpg6602P] Vs. Acit, Cc, Muzaffarpur………...……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhi Sarkar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Md. A H Chowdhury, Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 05, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 09, 2026 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.12.2024 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 1991-92. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Deriving Income From Business & Other Sources. During The Relevant Period, The Assessee Was Engaged In The Business Of Sale Of Liquor On Wholesale & Retail Basis In The Proprietary Concern Styled As M/S Surya Enterprises. A Search & Seizure Operation Under Section 132(1) Of The Act Was Conducted At The Business Premises As Well As The Residential Premises Of The Assessee. Pursuant Thereto, An Assessment

Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 158BSection 250

evidences in support of her claims and the Ld. CIT(A) shall adjudicate the issues afresh in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is made clear that in case the assessee again fails to comply, the Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass

Vijay Kumar, Samastipur vs. ITO, Ward 3 (3), Samastipur

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

ITA 79/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.79/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vijay Kumar………..………….………………. …………………....Appellant Kishanpur Warish Nagar, Samastipur, Bihar-848101. [Pan: Aqcpk3836C] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(3), Samastipur…....……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri G. P. Tulsiyan, Fca, 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 09, 2026 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.01.2025 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, An Individual, Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017–18 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹3,51,040. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment & Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Was Duly Issued. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Noticed Cash Deposits Of ₹20,00,000 In The Assessee’S Bank Account. The Assessing Officer Provided Several

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

submissions made by the assessee were not considered and the request for hearing through video conferencing was ignored, resulting in denial of proper opportunity of being heard. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused ... I.T.A. No.79/Pat/2025 Vijay Kumar CIT(A) with a direction to re-examine the issue afresh on merits, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, including consideration of the request for video conferencing, if made. The assessee is also directed to comply with all notices issued