← 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

Satyanarayana Gunuputi, Bhimavaram vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 53/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.52-54/Viz/2022 & 56/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 & 2018-19) Venkata Pavan Kumar Gunuputi Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of [Pan : Bsrpg1889F] Income Tax Central Circle-2 Satyanarayana Gunuputi Rajahmundry [Pan : Aftpg4842F] Naga Lakshmi Gunuputi [Pan : Afapg3496D] 19-9-3/3, Bank Colony Near Water Tank, Bhimavaram (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri K.Siva Ram Kumar, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 23.02.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 28.02.2023 Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri K.Siva Ram Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

considering the assessee’s submissions. Therefore, the Ld.AR pleaded to set aside the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and afford one more opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A) to substantiate his claim with evidences. 6. Per contra, the Ld.DR submitted that the assessee was given several opportunities ... additions made by the AO during the assessment proceedings were confirmed arbitrarily. Hence, the Ld.AR pleaded to give one more opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A) to substantiate his case with supporting evidences. Keeping in view the principles of natural justice, we are inclined to remit the matter

Venkata Pavan Kumar Gunuputi, Bhimavaram vs. ACIT Central Circle -2, Rajahmundary

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 52/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.52-54/Viz/2022 & 56/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 & 2018-19) Venkata Pavan Kumar Gunuputi Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of [Pan : Bsrpg1889F] Income Tax Central Circle-2 Satyanarayana Gunuputi Rajahmundry [Pan : Aftpg4842F] Naga Lakshmi Gunuputi [Pan : Afapg3496D] 19-9-3/3, Bank Colony Near Water Tank, Bhimavaram (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri K.Siva Ram Kumar, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 23.02.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 28.02.2023 Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri K.Siva Ram Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

considering the assessee’s submissions. Therefore, the Ld.AR pleaded to set aside the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and afford one more opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A) to substantiate his claim with evidences. 6. Per contra, the Ld.DR submitted that the assessee was given several opportunities ... additions made by the AO during the assessment proceedings were confirmed arbitrarily. Hence, the Ld.AR pleaded to give one more opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A) to substantiate his case with supporting evidences. Keeping in view the principles of natural justice, we are inclined to remit the matter

Dulam Peda Tirupathi Rao, Alamuru Mandal vs. Incpme Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 208/VIZ/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.205/Viz/2022 To 208/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Dulam Peda Tirupathi Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.1-117, Chemundulanka Ward-1(4) Alamuru Mandal Visakhapatnam East Godavari [Pan : Ajkpd0253B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2023

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 144

proceedings or appellate proceedings. He therefore, pleaded to afford one 5 I.T.A. No.205/Viz/2022 to 208/Viz/2022, A.Y.2015-16 Dulam Peda Tirupathi Rao, East Godavari more opportunity of being heard for which the Ld.DR has not raised any objection. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record ... apparent from the records, that the assessee did not receive any notices issued by the AO.. The Ld.AR pleaded for one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee to substantiate his claim. The Ld.DR has not raised any objection. Hence, in order to meet the principles of natural

Dulam Peda Tirupathi Rao, Alamuru Mandal vs. Income Tax Offcer, Ward-1(4), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 207/VIZ/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.205/Viz/2022 To 208/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Dulam Peda Tirupathi Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.1-117, Chemundulanka Ward-1(4) Alamuru Mandal Visakhapatnam East Godavari [Pan : Ajkpd0253B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2023

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 144

proceedings or appellate proceedings. He therefore, pleaded to afford one 5 I.T.A. No.205/Viz/2022 to 208/Viz/2022, A.Y.2015-16 Dulam Peda Tirupathi Rao, East Godavari more opportunity of being heard for which the Ld.DR has not raised any objection. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record ... apparent from the records, that the assessee did not receive any notices issued by the AO.. The Ld.AR pleaded for one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee to substantiate his claim. The Ld.DR has not raised any objection. Hence, in order to meet the principles of natural

Dulam Peda Tirupathi Rao, Alamuru Mandal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 206/VIZ/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.205/Viz/2022 To 208/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Dulam Peda Tirupathi Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.1-117, Chemundulanka Ward-1(4) Alamuru Mandal Visakhapatnam East Godavari [Pan : Ajkpd0253B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2023

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 144

proceedings or appellate proceedings. He therefore, pleaded to afford one 5 I.T.A. No.205/Viz/2022 to 208/Viz/2022, A.Y.2015-16 Dulam Peda Tirupathi Rao, East Godavari more opportunity of being heard for which the Ld.DR has not raised any objection. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record ... apparent from the records, that the assessee did not receive any notices issued by the AO.. The Ld.AR pleaded for one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee to substantiate his claim. The Ld.DR has not raised any objection. Hence, in order to meet the principles of natural

Dulam Peda Tirupathi Rao, Alamuru Mandal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 205/VIZ/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.205/Viz/2022 To 208/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Dulam Peda Tirupathi Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.1-117, Chemundulanka Ward-1(4) Alamuru Mandal Visakhapatnam East Godavari [Pan : Ajkpd0253B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2023

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 144

proceedings or appellate proceedings. He therefore, pleaded to afford one 5 I.T.A. No.205/Viz/2022 to 208/Viz/2022, A.Y.2015-16 Dulam Peda Tirupathi Rao, East Godavari more opportunity of being heard for which the Ld.DR has not raised any objection. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record ... apparent from the records, that the assessee did not receive any notices issued by the AO.. The Ld.AR pleaded for one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee to substantiate his claim. The Ld.DR has not raised any objection. Hence, in order to meet the principles of natural

Shri Naresh Ramji Bhanushali, Gandhidham vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Gandhidham

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

ITA 295/RJT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 295/Rjt/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14) Shri Naresh Ramji The Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ Bhanushali Ward-1, Gandhidham Vs. T. No.1, Plot No.257, Ward 8A, Gandhidham "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aewpb8042H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri V. J. Boricha, D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 12/12/2022 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 28/02/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.07.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 2, Rajkot (‘The Cit(A)’), Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 09.02.2016 Passed By The Learned Ito, Ward-1, Gandhidham Under Section

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R
Section 40A(3)Section 69C

justice and therefore, we set aside the issues to the file of the Ld. AO for deciding the same afresh upon granting opportunity of being heard to the assessee and upon taking into consideration the evidence which the assessee may choose to rely upon at the time of hearing

Sai Devlopers, Surat vs. Dy.CIT Central Cercle-4, Surat

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

ITA 122/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.122/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sai Developers, Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle*-4, Plot No.96, R.S. No.163/2, Block Surat. No.214, T. P. Scheme, 37, Althan Road, Althan, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abjfs4342M (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Brijesh Ariwala, Ar Revenue By: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 28/02/2023 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2014-15, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Surat [In Short ‘Ld. Cit(A)’], In Appeal No. Cas/4/156/2016-17, Dated 22.12.2017, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By Assessing Officer U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Dated 29.09.2016. 2. At The Outset Itself, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Assailed The Impugned Order By Contending That Assessee Could Not Represent His Case Before Ld. Cit(A) & The Order Being An Ex Parte Order, Stood Vitiated On Account Of Violation Of Principle Of Natural Justice. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That Because Of Legal Dispute Amongst The Partners, The Assessee Could Not Appear Before The Ld. Cit(A) & Therefore, Ld. Cit(A) Has Passed An Ex Parte Order Without Adjudicating The Issue On Merits. Therefore, Ld. Counsel Contended That Assessment Year. 2014-15 Sai Developers An Another Opportunity To Contest The Appeal Before The First Appellate Authority May Be Granted To The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Brijesh Ariwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 271A

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. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, we restore the matter ... back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the order