“opportunity of being heard”

Shri Vinayak Sudhakar Malkotagi, Mumbai vs. ITO. Int Taxation Ward-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blevinayak Sudhakar Malkotagi V. Ito – International Taxation Flat No. 104, Plot No. 36 Ward – 3(2)(1) Gorai Shree Sahyog Chs 16Th Floor, Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Near Gorai Depot Borivali (W), Mumbai - 400091 Pan: Aqopm5908M (Appellant) (Respondent)

alleged by the Ld. Assessing Officer. Objection No.3 1. The Ld. Assessing Officer has failed to provide the assessee with reasonable opportunity of being heard thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Statement of Fact 1. The assessee had filed a letter on 23-01-2022 against notice issued under ... appeal: - “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.AO failed to provide the appellant with reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appellant is a NRI was staying abroad during the course of proceedings. Thus, the appellant could not make proper representation before

Prafulla Shashikant Vaidya, Thane vs. DCIT, CC-1, Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

wherein, it directs that no order imposing penalty shall be made unless the assessee has been heard or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, from plain reading of section 271AAB of the Act, it is evident that the penalty cannot be imposed unless the assessee ... hear the assessee and to give reasonable opportunity to explain his case, there is no mandatory requirement of imposing penalty, because the opportunity of being heard and reasonable opportunity is not a mere formality but it is to adhere to the principles of natural justice. Hon'ble A.P. High Court

M/S Edifice Properties Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Edifice Properties Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, Central Circle 2(4), 208, Parvati Industrial Estate, Mumbai. Sunwill Compound, Lower Parel Vs. (W), Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aabce 5900 B Appellant Respondent

learned CIT(A) ex-parte is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. 2) The order passed by CIT(A) is without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard and is therefore illegal, invalid and bad in law. 3) The assessee was prevented on account of reasonable cause in making detailed submission ... thus dismissal of appeal to be set aside for providing reasonable M/s Edifice Properties Pvt. Ltd. M/s Edifice Properties Pvt. Ltd. 2 opportunity of being heard and to decide appeal after opportunity of being heard and to decide appeal after opportunity of being heard and to decide appeal after considering

Shakuntala Kamble (Legal Representative of Premchand Kamble), Thane vs. DCIT -Cent. Cir `, Thane

paragraph 9 of the order impugned, recorded as under: “9. One of the grounds of appeal for all the years is that proper opportunity of being heard was not given. During the appeal proceedings, several opportunities were given to the appellant to produce documents and submissions in support ... record and the merits of the additions made. The ground of appeal of the appellant (AYs 2005- 06 to 2008-09) pleading for opportunity of being heard be given to the appellant, is therefore held to be sufficiently complied with, though the appellant failed to make sufficient compliance

Iris Knowledge Foundation, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18

sustainable in the eyes of law, hence set aside and remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide afresh after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Ld. A.R. for the assessee assured the Bench that the assessee will appear before

Sanghamitra Prakash Patil, Mumbai vs. ITO-34(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee, stands allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry ()

Assessing Officer against which the Assessee is in appeal before us. 6. We observe that both the authorities below though afforded reasonable opportunities of being heard to the Assessee however, the Assessee neither filed its reply nor substantiated its claim of exemption under section 54/54F ... Relief Fund within 30 days‟ of receipt of this order by the Assessee. Suffice to say, the Ld.CIT(A) shall afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 4 ITAs 1822 & 1823/Mum/2023 Sanghamitra Prakash Patil We also direct the Assessee to appear and file the relevant documents as would

Sanghamitra Prakash Patil, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-34(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee, stands allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry ()

Assessing Officer against which the Assessee is in appeal before us. 6. We observe that both the authorities below though afforded reasonable opportunities of being heard to the Assessee however, the Assessee neither filed its reply nor substantiated its claim of exemption under section 54/54F ... Relief Fund within 30 days‟ of receipt of this order by the Assessee. Suffice to say, the Ld.CIT(A) shall afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 4 ITAs 1822 & 1823/Mum/2023 Sanghamitra Prakash Patil We also direct the Assessee to appear and file the relevant documents as would