“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

Shri Balbir Singh M/S Jaideep Gift Centre, Taptej Singh Market, Moga vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Moga Range, Moga

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 745/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Radhey Shyam Jaiswal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 27Section 271D

case and the written submission filed by the appellant, we are of the considered view that the appellant may be given one more opportunity of being heard to establish its claim with corroborative evidences before the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate its appeal on merits of the case by rebutting ... appeals afresh on merits after considering the material evidence filed on record, to be filed during fresh proceedings and by granting adequate fresh opportunity of being heard, to the appellant assessee. Accordingly, the case is restored to the CIT(A), to decide the appeals afresh by speaking order on merits

Harsha Shah, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-59(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2934/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Sharma, CA

Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 275

imposing penalty on the assessee and Ld. CIT-A has dismissed the appeal without going through the ground of appeal and providing any opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty order passed under section 270A ... imposing penalty on the assessee and Ld. CIT-A has dismissed the appeal without going through the ground of appeal and providing any opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He further submitted that therefore penalty may kindly be cancelled. 4. Replying to the above, the ld. Senior DR supported

M/S Healthway Charitable Trust, Panaji vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Bengaluru

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

ITA 259/PAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.259/Pan/2019 M/S. Healthway Charitable Vs. Cit, Exemption, Trust, Bengaluru. Healthway Hospital Near Peoples High School, Fontainhas, Mala, Panaji, Goa- 403001. Pan : Aabth3867P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri N. Shrikanth Date Of Hearing : 14.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Rejection Of Approval U/S 80G(5)(Vi) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) By The Ld. Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Bangalore [‘The Cit (Exemptions)’] Vide Order Dated 24.06.2019. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Trust Registered Under The Provisions Of Section 12Aa Of The Act On 30.11.2015 Vide Order No. Cit(E)Blr/12A/Pnj-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)(vi)

order passed by the ld. CIT (Exemptions) is hereby set-aside and direct him to pass afresh order after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Thus, the ground of appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed. 6. In the result, the appeal filed

Aruna Tiwari, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Raipur

ITA 90/RPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 90/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Aruna Tiwari 762, Sundar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Adbpt4977B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

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

PCIT") under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") is highly unjustified, bad in law, without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard, against the principles of natural justice and not in accordance with the provisions of law. It is prayed that the Revision Order passed under section ... order to the file of the A.O with a direction to adjudicate the issues afresh after conducting necessary enquiries and affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. Aggrieved the assessee has assailed the order passed by the Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 u/s.263 of the Act dated

Chhattisgarh Diocese Board of Education Cni, Raipur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee, without going into the merits of the issues, is dismissed in limine

ITA 2/RPR/2021[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2/Rpr/2021 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Chhattisgarh Diocese Board Of Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Education Cni, (Exemption), Gate No. 1, Opp. Rajbhawan, Bhopal (M.P.) Civil Lines, Raipur Pan No. : Aacac1876F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Simran Bhullar, CIT(DR)

Section 12A

assessee has submitted that the assessee’s application under section 12AA of the Act was rejected by learned CIT(E) without affording proper opportunity of being heard, and therefore, the order of learned CIT(E) is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 4. When a question with regard

Mh Brothers, Raisen vs. The ITO, Raisen

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 371/IND/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 249(2)Section 250

merit in the case of an appeal presented out of time. The CIT(A) is not bound to compulsorily allow the appellant the opportunity of being heard before rejecting in limini a time barred appeal. It is incumbent to file a condonation application and explaining each day of delay

Mh Brothers, Raisen vs. The ITO, Raisen

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 370/IND/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 249(2)Section 250

Inject Care Parenterals Pvt. Ltd., Vapi vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 230/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Inject Care Parenterals Pvt. Ltd., Pr.C.I.T., Plot No. 130, G.I.D.C., Silvassa Valsad. Vs. Road, Vapi-396195. Pan: Aabci 0232 J Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 37

order passed u/s 143(3) dated 22/03/2021 on the issue of addition to fixed assets and foreign exchange fluctuation gain as no opportunity of being heard was provided to the assessee on the above issues, which even does not form part of show cause notice issued

Birju Mahesh Patel, Mumbai vs. Add/Jt/Dy/ACIT/ITO, National Faceless Centre, Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1256/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Parvathy Ganesh, Ld. ACFor Respondent: Shri. Suresh Gaikwad, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 250

National Relief Funds within 30 days of the receipt of this order as the Assessee agreed, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. We also direct the Assessee to cooperate with the appellate proceedings and file the relevant document(s) which would be needed

Shri Sanjay Chandrakant Gaonkar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 26(1) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 364/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Sanjay Chandrakant Income Tax Officer 26(1)(2) Gaonkar Kautilya Bhavan,C-41 To C-43, Vs. O-270, Rbi Staff Quarters, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, North Avenue Road, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051 Santacruz (W), Mumbai- 400054 Pan No. Aimpg3359C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri Sunny Mathews, AR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

raising grounds as reproduced below: 1) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in passing the order without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard. 2) The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 59,46,260/- on account of alleged Shree Sanjay Chandrakant Gaonkar

Jpj Industries Pvt. Ltd, Cuttack vs. ACIT Central Circle, Cuttack

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

ITA 92/CTK/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Girish Agrawalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.92/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) Jpj Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, Central Circle,Cuttack 1, Manik Ghosh Bazar, Purighat, Cuttack-753002 Pan No. :Aadcj 2773 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri C.Parida, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 30.01.2023, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.Bhubaneswar-2/11235/2017-18, For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. At The Outset, On Perusal Of The Assessment Order & The Appellate Order, It Is Found That The Assessee Has Not Produced Any Evidence Either Before The Ao Or Before The Ld.Cit(A). In This Regard, Ld.Ar Submitted That One More Opportunity May Be Provided To File All The Documents Before The Ld. Cit(A) To Substantiate Its Claim. 3. In Reply, Ld Sr Dr Submitted That Proper Opportunities Were Allowed & The Assessee Could Not Produce The Documents As Required By Both The Authorities Below. It Was Submitted That The Orders Passed By Both The Authorities Below Deserve To Be Upheld.

For Appellant: Shri C.Parida, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR

justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard, subject to the assessee providing the receipt of payment of cost of Rs.1000/- on the first date of posting the appeal for hearing

Vivek Agarwal, Rajgangpur vs. ITO Ward-1, Rourkela

In the result, Stay petition filed by the assessee is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 33/CTK/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Girish Agrawalwals.A. No.5/Ctk/2023 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Vivek Agarwal, C/O. Jugal Vivek Agarwal, C/O. Jugal Vs. Ito, Ward Ito, Ward-1, Kishore Dinanat, Main Road, Kishore Dinanat, Main Road, Rourkela Rajgangpur Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aafpn 4306 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/07 7/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/0 /07/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty

issue to his file for fresh adjudication after allowing reasonable P a g e 3 | 4 S.A. No.5/CTK/2023 Assessment Year : 2011-12 opportunity of being heard to the assessee and as per law. The assessee is directed to file all such evidences, as required for adjudication of the appeal

Seema Pandit, Mount Au vs. ITO, Ward, Mount Abu

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

ITA 160/JODH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: The Cit(A) To Rectify The Order. The Cit(A) Has Rejected The Application U/S 154 Vide Order Dated 29.3.2019 & Served The Order On The Assessee On 19.4.2019. After Rejection Of His Application U/S 154, The Assessee Has Immediately Filed This Appeal Before The Hon'Ble Tribunal..

Section 154Section 250(6)

assessee prayed that the ld. CIT(A) and the AO has passed the ex-parte order and the assessee was not provided adequate opportunity of being heard. Thus, the assessee may be provided one more opportunity to advance his arguments/submissions before the ld. AO in the interest of equity

Anuj Sood, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-06, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 287/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 132Section 69B

case and in law by not allowing assessee’s appeal by dismissing the ground that the AO has not provided proper opportunity of being heard and violated the principle of natural justice by either rejecting or ignoring the submission made by appellant assessee.” 3. During the course of search action

Beacon Higher Education Services Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-4(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1915/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 154Section 2Section 254Section 32

under: “5. Under Section 254 of the Income-tax Act, the Appellate Tribunal may, after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit. The power of the Tribunal in dealing with appeals is thus expressed in the widest

Grand Motors, Bilaspur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 167/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 167/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Grand Motors Nh-200, Raipur Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) Pan: Aakfg6077H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C. Roy, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 40

aside his order with a direction to dispose off the same on merits. Needless to say, the CIT(Appeals) shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in the course of the de novo appellate proceedings. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are disposed

Shri Akalamukhi Hanumanji Mandir Trust, Surat vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad

ITA 262/SRT/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Jul 2023AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos.261/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2022-23) (Physical Court Hearing) Renuka Mandir Trust The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemption) Ahmedabad, Room C/O Pramodchandra Mohanlal Vs. No.609, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan Chhattriwala, Renuka Sheri, (Vejalpur), Nr. Schin Tower, 100 Foot Ranitalao, Surat-395003 Road, Anandnagar-Prahladnagar Road, Ahmedabad-380015 "थायीलेखासं /.जीआइआरसं /.Pan/Gir No.: Aaatr 2387 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.262/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2022-23) Shri Akalamukhi Hanumanji The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemption) Ahmedabad, Room Mandir Trust, Vs. No.609, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan Patel Falia, Kadodara, Surat- (Vejalpur), Nr. Schin Tower, 100 Foot 394327 Road, Anandnagar-Prahladnagar Road, Ahmedabad-380015 "थायीलेखासं /.जीआइआरसं /.Pan/Gir No.: Aadts 2245 Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Hiren R. Vepari, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Sm Keshkamat, Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/07/2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By Two Separate Assessees, Pertaining To Same Assessment Year 2022-23, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Exemption)-Ahmedabad [In Short “Ld. Cit(Exemption)”] Dated 29.03.2023 & 21.03.2023, Wherein Ld. Cit(Exemption) Has Denied Registration Under Section 12Ab Of The Income

For Appellant: Shri Hiren R. Vepari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri SM Keshkamat, CIT-DR

Section 12A

submit the relevant details and documents before Ld. CIT(Exemption). 15. Considering the above facts, we note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead its case successfully before the ld. CIT(Exemption). Hence it is a violation of principle of natural justice ... 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. Therefore, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(Exemption) and remit

Renuka Mandir Trust, Surat vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad

ITA 261/SRT/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Jul 2023AY 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Hiren R. Vepari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri SM Keshkamat, CIT-DR

Section 12A

Dinesh Kumar Chaurasia, Tonk vs. PCIT Central, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 102/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Ajey Malik (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 5

assessing officer is erroneous in so far as the same is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The assessee was given opportunity of being heard and finally the ld PCIT has passed the order u/s. 263 by observing as under: “10. I have studied the facts at hand ... order dated 02.07.2021 for the A.Y 2019- 20 and direct a fresh assessment to be made in accordance with provisions of law. Adequate opportunity of being heard should be given to the assessee.” 8. Feeling dissatisfied with the order of the PCIT, assessee has preferred this present appeal

Mr. Mahesh C Shah, Mumbai vs. CIT(A)-6, Mumbai

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

ITA 838/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.838/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Mahesh C Shah बिधम/ Cit(A)-6 3Rd Floor, Room No. 10, A B-208, Ramdev Park Chsl, Vs. Chandavarkar Road, Next To Wing, Mittal Court, Sp Mukherjee Garden, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Borivali (West)-400002. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadps1521R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-06, Mumbai Dated 15.03.2019 For Ay. 2009-10. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. 3. Brief Facts Are That The Assessee Is A Proprietor Of A Firm Named M/S. Haresh Trading Co, Which Is Dealing With Trading Of Electrical Components. The Assessee Had Filed The Return Of Income On 30.09.2009 For Ay. 2009-10 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,09,973/-. Later, The Assessment Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act’) By Issuance Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act After Recording The Reasons. The Ao Noted That He Received Information From The Dgit(Inv.), Mumbai That During The Relevant Year, The Assessee Had Dealt With Thirteen (13) Parties Who Were Hawala Operators Which Information The Investigation Wing (Dgit) Received

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. DR)

Section 144Section 147Section 148

said mentions have not been proven with any details/documents. The appellant, rather and despite receipt of various notices has chosen not to avail opportunity of being heard for the reasons best known to him. Under these facts and circumstances nothing could be considered to be factually demonstrated. Therefore