← 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

Gyan Chand Sharma, Palwal vs. ITO Ward - 1(3), Faridabad

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

ITA 1586/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Gyan Chand Sharma, Vs Ito, H.No.436, Adarsh Colony, Ward-1(3), Palwal, Haryana. Faridabad. Pan-Bhgps2052E Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Ms. Maimun Alam, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2023

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

impugned addition. The issue is restored to the file of AO for decision afresh. Needless to say that the AO would give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The AO would further verify the factum of amount of Rs.11,00,000/- received from his wife and Rs.10

Shri Raghav Mehandru, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1 (3), Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA/80/ASR/2022 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 80/ASR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Smt. Rajinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 250

matter to ld. CIT(A) for further adjudication denovo. Needless to say, that the ld. CIT(A) shall provide proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee in set aside proceedings. The evidence/explanation submitted by assessee in its defence shall be admitted

Shri Kuldip Singh, Kapurthala vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 38/ASR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

pass a fresh assessment order after verifying and examining all the relevant facts of the case, legal position and giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 9. In case of “Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT’, (Supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that ... Supra)(SC). 8 Kuldeep Singh v. Pr. CIT 12. Without prejudice to above, we made it clear that adequate opportunity of being heard is required to be extended to the Assessee in the fresh assessment proceedings to be undertaken by the AO. Therefore, no liberty or clarification is necessary

Sanjeev Kalia, Kapurthala vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Phagwara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 229/ASR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Sh. J. S. Bhasin, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Kanchan Garg, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 19Section 19(1)(b)Section 250(6)

directed to cooperate in proceeding before the revenue authority. Needless to say, that the ld. CIT(A) shall provide proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee in set aside proceedings. The evidence/explanation submitted by assessee in its defence shall be admitted by 5 Sanjeev Kalia

M/S Bajrang Agrotech(I) Pvt. Ltd, Durg(Cg) vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bhilai, Bhilai(Cg)

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations as above for statistical purposes

ITA 43/BIL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.43/Rpr/2017 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Bajrang Agrotech (I) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Ito-2(1), Bhilai (C.G.) Village Samoda, Dhamdha Road, Durg (C.G.) Pan No. :Aaccb 2444 G (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri S.R.Rao, Advocate & Nilesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C.Roy, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 68Section 69Section 69C

files of ld. AO to re-adjudicate the issue and we do so. Needless to say, the assessee shall be provided with reasonable opportunity of being heard and to explain the facts to substantiate its contentions. 9. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms

The Bharat Co-Op Thrift & Credit Society Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-35(1) Delhi, Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1870/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)Section 29Section 80P(2)(d)

certificate for interest for the FY 2017- 18 dated 27.10.2020 and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose only

Peerless Consultancy Services Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-16, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 9750/DEL/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 69C

Alleging that assessee failed to discharge onus casted on it to prove the genuineness of expenses. III. Not providing adequate and proper opportunity of being heard and to produce the evidences. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law the Ld. Commissioner ... Alleging that assessee failed to discharge onus casted on it to prove the genuineness of expenses. IV. Not providing adequate and proper opportunity of being heard and to produce the evidences. 5 ITAs. 9748 & 9750/Del/2019 Peerless Consultancy Services, ND 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Peerless Consultancy Services P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-16, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 9748/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

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

Section 69C

Alleging that assessee failed to discharge onus casted on it to prove the genuineness of expenses. III. Not providing adequate and proper opportunity of being heard and to produce the evidences. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law the Ld. Commissioner ... Alleging that assessee failed to discharge onus casted on it to prove the genuineness of expenses. IV. Not providing adequate and proper opportunity of being heard and to produce the evidences. 5 ITAs. 9748 & 9750/Del/2019 Peerless Consultancy Services, ND 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 19(1), New Delhi

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6249/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

before CIT (Appeals) as Hon’ble ITAT has remand back the order U/s 250 1.2. That Ld. CIT Appeals has not given the opportunity of being heard while not considering the order of ITAT about the remand back of the appeal order U/s 250. 3. The Ld. Counsel

Dharam Pal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward -42(5), New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5811/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Department by: Shri Avikal Manu, Sr. D. RFor Respondent: Shri Avikal Manu, Sr. D. R
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 54B

called ambiguous wording in the notice [has not] impaired or prejudiced the right of the assessee to a reasonable opportunity of being heard". It went onto observe that for sustaining the piea of natural justice on the ground of absence of opportunity, "it has to be established that prejudice

Virender Yadav, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 4(4), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1787/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra[Assessment Year: 2013-14]

Section 131

that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and by disregarding the evidences I submissions filed by the assessee and without providing adequate opportunity of being heard and in violation of principles of natural justice. 2) That in any case and in any view of the matter, action

P.Sudarshan, `Visakhapatnam vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Visakhaptnam

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

ITA 53/VIZ/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.53/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) P.Sudarshan Vs. Income Tax Officer 33-12-35, Devangula Veedhi Ward-1(2) Allipuram Direct Taxes Building Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Ahwpp6272G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.Sanjeevarao, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri On Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing 31.01.2023 : घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2023

For Appellant: Shri C.Sanjeevarao, ARFor Respondent: Shri ON Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

cash for purchasing and registering the property and hence directed the AO to redo the assessment afresh as per law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the 3 I.T.A. No.53/Viz/2020, A.Y.2007-08 P.Sudarsan, Allipuram, Visakhapatnam assessee. Consequent to the directions of the Ld.PCIT, the Ld.AO issued notice

De Paul Educational Society, Eluru vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions), Hyderabad

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

ITA 155/VIZ/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.155/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) De Paul Educational Society Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Pinakadimi (Exemptions) Pinakadimi Post Hyderabad Pedavegi Mandal Eluru, West Godavari [Pan :Aaaad7299K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Johney, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 31.01.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2023

For Appellant: Shri Johney, ARFor Respondent: Shri MN Murthy Naik
Section 10Section 139Section 2(15)

outset, the Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.CIT(E) has not given any opportunity to establish it’s case and pleaded for one more opportunity of being heard. 4. On this aspect, the Ld.DR also has not raised any objection to remit the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT ... therefore, remit the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(E) to examine this issue after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass appropriate order. We also direct the assessee to cooperate with the Ld.CIT(E) and furnish all necessary documents before him. 4 I.T.A. No.155/Viz/2020

Bikash Patra, Rourkela vs. ITO Ward-4, Rourkela

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

ITA 49/CTK/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2018-19 Bikash Patra, B Bikash Patra, B-4 & 5, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Sector-20, 20, Rourkela, Rourkela, Rourkela Sundargarh Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aiypp 1174 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agarwalla, Ca & S.K.Hota, Ar S.K.Agarwalla, Ca & S.K.Hota, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/0 02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/0 /02/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), , Nfac, Nfac, Delhi Delhi Dated 30.7.2021 In Appeal No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021-22/1034539422(1) For The Assessment Year The Assessment Year 2018- 19. 2. Shri S.K.Agarwalla, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri S.K.Agarwalla, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri S.K.Agarwalla, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue. S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwalla, CA and S.K.Hota, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)Section 37(1)Section 43B

authorities.” Hence, on identical findings this issue is restored to the file of the AO for re-adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. 8. In regard to the issue of employer’s contribution to PF and ESI, as it is noticed that the issue is covered

Livpure P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-5, New Delhi

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

ITA 2812/DEL/2019[2014-151]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2023AY 2014-151

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Bipul Matta, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Chand, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250(6)

inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the Assessing Officer for decision afresh, suffice to say, by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. The Assessee is also directed to produce the bifurcated details and documents in relation to the expenses incurred on account

Shri Altaf Husain Shah, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Srinagar

ITA 13/ASR/2021[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Feb 2023AY 2001-02

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

For Appellant: Sh. Nazia Wani, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Kanchan Garg, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250(6)Section 253Section 3

back the matter to the CIT(A) for further adjudication. Needless to say, that the ld. CIT(A) shall provide proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee in set aside proceedings. The evidence/explanation submitted by assessee in its defence shall be admitted

Mesers Alfa Mechanical & Electricals Engineering Works, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Oficer Ward 3 (1), Srinagar

In the result ITA No. 137/ASR/2018 and ITA No

ITA 99/ASR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Umar Rashid Wani, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Kanchan Garg, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

issue also to verify the claim of depreciation accordingly. Needless to say, that the ld. CIT(A) shall provide proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee in set aside proceedings. The evidence/explanation submitted by assessee in its defence shall be admitted

M/S Alfa Mechanical & Electricals Engineering Works, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Srinagar

In the result ITA No. 137/ASR/2018 and ITA No

ITA 137/ASR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Umar Rashid Wani, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Kanchan Garg, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

issue also to verify the claim of depreciation accordingly. Needless to say, that the ld. CIT(A) shall provide proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee in set aside proceedings. The evidence/explanation submitted by assessee in its defence shall be admitted

Shri Tulshibhai Polabhai Sakariya, Rajkot vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 93/RJT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 93/Rjt/2021 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year:2015-16 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Shri Tulsibhai Polabhai Sakariya Vs. The Pr. C.I.T, 2-Bombay Housing Society, Rajkot-1, Meghdhara, University Road, Rajkot. Opp. G. K. Dholakiya, Rajkot

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

section 263 of the Act 1961. Therefore, by invocation of Explanation in the order without confronting the assessee and giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee is not appropriate and sustainable in law. 21.1 In view of the above and after considering the facts in totality, we hold

Shri Rajkot District Cooperative Bank Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Pr. Commr. of Income Tax-1, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 123/RJT/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2011-12 Shri Rajkot District Cooperative Vs. Pr.Cit, Rajkot-1 Bank Ltd. Rajkot. ‘Jilla Bank Bhavan’, Kasturba Road Opp: Chaudhari High School Rajkot. Pan : Aaaar 0564 K 0 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assesseeby : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17/11/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/02/2023

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, ld.CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36

erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify