← All Phrases

“violation of natural justice”

Natural JusticeAudi Alteram PartemAudi Alteram Partem881 judgments

The decision most relied on for violation of natural justice is Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT (125 ITR 713), cited in 962 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on violation of natural justice

Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT
125 ITR 713 · 1980 · Supreme Court
962
citing judgments

An assessee is entitled to be confronted with evidence used against them and to an opportunity for cross-examination, especially when that evidence is from a third party or a retracted statement. Failure to provide such an opportunity violates the principles of natural justice.

CIT v. Ashwani Gupta
322 ITR 396 · 2010 · High Court
262
citing judgments

Proceedings become fatal if principles of natural justice are violated, such as when seized material is not provided to the assessee or cross-examination of a person whose statement the Assessing Officer relies upon is denied.

Shivsagar Veg Restaurant v. ACIT
317 ITR 433 · 2009 · High Court
202
citing judgments

Orders that are inordinately delayed are liable to be recalled and heard afresh, and the Appellate Tribunal President should frame guidelines for timely disposal of appeals.

Vijay Shrinivasrao Kulkarni v. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal
171 Taxmann.com 696 · 2025 · High Court
200
citing judgments

The ITAT fails to uphold natural justice when it doesn't address an infirmity regarding an assessee being denied a proper opportunity of being heard before the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC dismissed the matter ex-parte.

H.R. Mehta v. ACIT
387 ITR 561 · 2016 · High Court
175
citing judgments

An assessment order is unsustainable if the Assessing Officer denies the assessee the opportunity to cross-examine deponents whose statements are relied upon or fails to provide the material used against them, as this violates principles of natural justice.

H.R. Mehta v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Mumbai
72 Taxmann.com 110 · 2016 · High Court
125
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer must provide the assessee with all material relied upon for an addition or disallowance and an opportunity to cross-examine deponents or witnesses whose statements form the basis of the assessment. Failure to provide such an opportunity violates natural justice and invalidates the addition or disallowance.

Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise
15 SCC 785 · 2016 · Supreme Court
91
citing judgments

An assessment order is invalid if it relies on statements of third-party witnesses without granting the assessee the opportunity to cross-examine them, as this constitutes a fundamental breach of natural justice. No addition can be sustained if based solely on un-cross-examined statements.

Additional Income-tax Officer v. Ponkunnam Traders
102 ITR 366 · 1976 · High Court
66
citing judgments

When an Income-tax Officer relies on third-party evidence to make an addition to an assessee's income, the assessee must be given an opportunity to cross-examine those parties. Failure to provide this opportunity violates natural justice and invalidates the addition.

Judgments citing violation of natural justice

M.K Rajendran Pillai, Pathanamthitta vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kollam

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

ITA 580/COCH/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. J.M Jamuna Devi (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 245C(1)

after inordinate delay of about 21 months and retraction was not supported by any ITA Nos.580 to 586/Coch/2022 evidences. Therefore, the plea of violation of natural justice was also dismissed by Ld. CIT(A). 4.5 During appellate proceedings, remand report was sought by Ld. CIT(A) on various submissions made

Mgs Securities P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is 11

ITA 519/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhary

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Sh. Jeetender Chand, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

circumstances of the case the impugned order passed by the respondent and upheld by Ld. CIT(A) is illegal without jurisdiction, perverse, violative of natural justice, without fair and objective application of mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable and without being guided by the binding ... 519/Del./20189 MGS Securities P. Ltd. any effective opportunity of hearing was provided to the assessee and hence, the impugned order passed in violation of natural justice must have been quashed by Ld. CIT(A) and failing to do so has vitiated the order of appeal. 5. The authorities below

Puneet Mangla, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 19(1) & (2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1524/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 54F

directed the A.O. to assess the long term capital gain as short capital gain without affording opportunity to the assessee which is in violation of natural justice. Therefore, we deem it fit to remand the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo consideration after providing opportunity

The Byke Hospitality Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy. Comm of Income Tax, Circle -2(2) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1954/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Byke Hospitality Ltd., National Faceless Appeal 156-158 Chakravarty Ashok Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Complex, Mumbai, Sahar P & T Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(2)(1), Colony S.O., Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400099. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaack 2113 R Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Ms. Shivangi Chopara, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ashish Heliwal, Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/11/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 29/12/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Ms. Shivangi Chopara, AR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 274

also raised the issue of principles of lant has also raised the issue of principles of natural justice but failed to specify about violation of natural justice but failed to specify about violation of natural justice but failed to specify about violation of The Byke Hospitality Ltd. 9 principle principle ... contention of the appellant about violation of natural the contention of the appellant about violation of natural the contention of the appellant about violation of natural justice is rejected. justice is rejected. 4.1.4 During the appell 4.1.4 During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has ate proceedings, the appellant has cited

Rohit Infra Projects P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2, Thane

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

ITA 2436/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar (DR)

filed before the Ld. CIT(A) [para no. 4 of the Ld. CIT(A)]. Therefore, the Ld. AR, submits that there has been violation of natural justice since the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the exparte order without hearing the assessee; and though has given some relief, he has more ... less confirmed the high-pitched assessment, which impugned action is in clear violation of natural justice and he prays to nix the impugned order or in the alternative to give an opportunity again before the Ld. CIT(A). 4. Per contra, the Ld. CIT-DR opposing the plea

Rohit Infra Projects P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2, Thane

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

ITA 2435/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar (DR)

filed before the Ld. CIT(A) [para no. 4 of the Ld. CIT(A)]. Therefore, the Ld. AR, submits that there has been violation of natural justice since the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the exparte order without hearing the assessee; and though has given some relief, he has more ... less confirmed the high-pitched assessment, which impugned action is in clear violation of natural justice and he prays to nix the impugned order or in the alternative to give an opportunity again before the Ld. CIT(A). 4. Per contra, the Ld. CIT-DR opposing the plea

Rohit Infra Projects P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2, Thane

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

ITA 2434/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar (DR)

filed before the Ld. CIT(A) [para no. 4 of the Ld. CIT(A)]. Therefore, the Ld. AR, submits that there has been violation of natural justice since the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the exparte order without hearing the assessee; and though has given some relief, he has more ... less confirmed the high-pitched assessment, which impugned action is in clear violation of natural justice and he prays to nix the impugned order or in the alternative to give an opportunity again before the Ld. CIT(A). 4. Per contra, the Ld. CIT-DR opposing the plea

Rohit Infra Projects P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2, Thane

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

ITA 2433/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar (DR)

filed before the Ld. CIT(A) [para no. 4 of the Ld. CIT(A)]. Therefore, the Ld. AR, submits that there has been violation of natural justice since the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the exparte order without hearing the assessee; and though has given some relief, he has more ... less confirmed the high-pitched assessment, which impugned action is in clear violation of natural justice and he prays to nix the impugned order or in the alternative to give an opportunity again before the Ld. CIT(A). 4. Per contra, the Ld. CIT-DR opposing the plea

Rohit Infra Projects P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2, Thane

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

ITA 2432/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar (DR)

filed before the Ld. CIT(A) [para no. 4 of the Ld. CIT(A)]. Therefore, the Ld. AR, submits that there has been violation of natural justice since the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the exparte order without hearing the assessee; and though has given some relief, he has more ... less confirmed the high-pitched assessment, which impugned action is in clear violation of natural justice and he prays to nix the impugned order or in the alternative to give an opportunity again before the Ld. CIT(A). 4. Per contra, the Ld. CIT-DR opposing the plea

Rohit Infra Projects P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2, Thane

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

ITA 2431/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar (DR)

filed before the Ld. CIT(A) [para no. 4 of the Ld. CIT(A)]. Therefore, the Ld. AR, submits that there has been violation of natural justice since the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the exparte order without hearing the assessee; and though has given some relief, he has more ... less confirmed the high-pitched assessment, which impugned action is in clear violation of natural justice and he prays to nix the impugned order or in the alternative to give an opportunity again before the Ld. CIT(A). 4. Per contra, the Ld. CIT-DR opposing the plea

Sakshi Rajan Gupta, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 2095/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2095/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Sakshi Rajan Gupta बिधम/ Acit Circle Int Tax- 6, Pankaj Mahal, 2Nd Floor, 1(3)(1) Vs. Jt Siphimalani Marg, Mumbai. Churchgate-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afjpg9115Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Pritesh Joshi Revenue By: Shri Milind Chavan (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/12/2022 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. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi-42 Dated 09.06.2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ao In Not Giving Proper Opportunity To The Assessee Before Passing The Assessment Order Wherein He Has Disallowed The Expenses Of Rs.28,79,641/- Claimed By The Assessee (Non-Resident).

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan (Sr. DR)

assessee has been given proper opportunity by AO before passing the assessment order. And therefore according to Ld. CIT(A) there is no violation of natural justice. According to the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has not filed any document to prove that the expenses claimed to have been incurred

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF)`, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cent.. Cir 3(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2018/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2018/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16) Anil Agrawal (Huf) बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-3(4) 2401-2402, Anmol Pride, Air India Building, Vs. Off. S. V. Road, Goregaon Nariman Point, Mumbai- (West), Mumbai-400062. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacha9591E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Poojan Mehta Revenue By: Smt. Shailja Rai (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/11/2022 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. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Mumbai Dated 18.01.2021 For Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Poojan MehtaFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai (DR)
Section 263

impugned order on 18.01.2021. Therefore assessee could not respond to the notice of Ld. PCIT. Therefore, according to Ld. AR, there is violation of natural justice and cited the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Amitabh Bachchan [Civil Appeal ... that in case if opportunity of hearing were not given to the assessee, the order of the Ld. PCIT would be fragile for violation of natural justice and not for lack of jurisdiction. In the present case, we note that the Ld PCIT has passed an ex-parte order, during

P vs. Herbals, Mumbai

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

ITA 1355/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1355/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18) Pvs Herbals बिधम/ Pcit-27 C/O Rc Reshamwala & Co, 401, 4Th Floor, Tower-6, Vs. 323 Varma Chambers, 11 Vashi Railway Station, Homji Street, Fort-400001. Commercial Complex, Vashi Navi Mumbai- 400703. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajfp1361Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Kirit Sanghavi/Shri Manish Reshamwala Revenue By: Shri K. C. Salvamani (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/11/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Action Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-27, Mumbai Dated 21.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Sanghavi/Shri ManishFor Respondent: Shri K. C. Salvamani (DR)
Section 263

ground of lack of jurisdiction but on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice. And since there is violation of natural justice, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and restore the issue back to the file of the Ld. PCIT for fresh proceedings. For doing

M/S. Milestone Mercandise Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 7 (1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2310/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Milestone Vs. Dcit-7(1)(1) Mercandise Private Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Limited , 5 Measant Road, Churchgate, Road, K. T. Compound, Mumbai - 400020 Sewreee (East), Mumbai – 400015 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aabcm5078N Respondent .. Appellant

For Appellant: Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Mahita Nair
Section 143(2)

NFAC, Delhi, dated 10.08.2022 for A.Y. 2013-14. The assessee has raised the following grounds before us: “1. Passing the order against violation of natural justice The Ld CIT(A) erred in passing the order without providing proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant Company. Thereby, passing the order without

Print Plus P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-7(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result of the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1719/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1719/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बिधम/ Income Tax Office 7(1)(4) Print Plus Private Limited 212, Swastik Chember, Income Tax Office, Vs. Off. Sion Aayakar Bhavan, Trombay Road, Chembur Churchgate, Mumbai-400071. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecp7030J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri .N.K. Bhuta Revenue By: Mr.Ujjawal Chavhan, Sr Ar Date Of Hearing: 29/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09/11/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per: Aby T.Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri .N.K. BhutaFor Respondent: Mr.Ujjawal Chavhan, Sr AR
Section 133(6)

Ld.AR could not demonstrate with the aid of any material or action of Ld.CIT(A) from record to show that there was violation of natural justice. We note that before the Ld.CIT(A), the Ld.AR of the assessee had appeared and his presence has been marked in the caption page

M/S. Bhavasar Kshatriya Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Hubballi vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 583/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year The Income-Tax

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha, Advocate
Section 56Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us. We are of the opinion that there is a violation of natural justice in respect of not granting sufficient time to the assessee for representing its case before the Ld.PCIT. However, considering the fact that

M/S. Bhavasar Kshatriya Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Hubballi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Hubballi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 582/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year The Income-Tax

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha, Advocate
Section 56Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us. We are of the opinion that there is a violation of natural justice in respect of not granting sufficient time to the assessee for representing its case before the Ld.PCIT. However, considering the fact that

M/S. Bhavasar Kshatriya Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Hubballi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(3), Hubballi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 581/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year The Income-Tax

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha, Advocate
Section 56Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us. We are of the opinion that there is a violation of natural justice in respect of not granting sufficient time to the assessee for representing its case before the Ld.PCIT. However, considering the fact that

Kamal Jafferali Wadhwania, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD 2(2) (4), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 389/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalkamal Jafferali Wadhwania, 504/A Green Park, Usha Darshan Chsl, Sjantivan Mhada, Off Link Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400093. Pan: Aahpw5049G ...... Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2)(4), Room No. 716, 7Th Floor, Smt. K.G. Mittal Ayurvedic Hospital Building, Charni, Road, Mumbai-400002. ..... Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/09/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh, Sr. DR
Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

vide para 3.2 of the assessment order that “the assessee is not ready to co-operate”, is baseless and rather it confirms violation of natural justice and a very harsh burden is being imposed by the A.O on the assessee. These are the factual findings other than the merits

Sericulturists Cum Farmers Service Co-Operative Society Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Bengaluru

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

ITA 425/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Sericulturists Cum Farmers Service Co-Operative Society Ltd., The Principal 01Sfcs Building, Commissioner Of Near Bus Stop, Income Tax – 2, Sarjapura Town, Bengaluru. Vs. Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru – 562 125. Pan: Aaaas6468H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Ranjan, Ca Revenue By : Shri Praveen Karanth, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30/03/2022 Passed By Ld.Pr.Cit-2, Bangalore U/S. 263 Of The Act Relating To A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. Tax Effect Relating To Grounds Of Appeal Each Ground Of Appeal The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bengaluru-2 ("Pr. Cit") Dated 30-Mar-2022, Passed Under I. Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ("The Act") N.A Insofar It Is Against The Appellant, Is Opposed To The Law, Weight Of Evidence, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Ranjan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57Section 68Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

reject this argument by the Ld.AR. Now coming to the merits of the case, we are of the opinion that there is a violation of natural justice in respect of not granting sufficient time to the assessee for representing its case before the Ld.PCIT. However, considering the fact that