← 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

Visa Sales Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.O. Ward 1(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 526/KOL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No.526/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Visa Sales Pvt. Ltd........….……………………....................……….……Appellant 12, Waterloo Street, Kolkata-700069. [Pan: Aadcv1161H] Vs. A.O, Ward-1(3), Kolkata……..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Narayan Gupta, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 09, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 21, 2022 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-19, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 06.03.2018 Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 29.03.2014 Passed By Ito, Ward-1(3), Kolkata. 2. The Registry Has Informed That This Appeal Is Time Barred By 968 Days. On Going Through The Condonation Application In The Form Of Affidavit & After Hearing Both The Parties, We Find That This Delay Is Accountable For Two Reasons. Firstly, The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) Is Dated 06.03.2018 & The Assessee Has Not Received The Order On Time. Secondly, The Period Of Delay Occurred On Account Of Lockdown In The State Due To Outbreak Of Covid-19. In View Of The Reasons Stated In The Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay & Also The Extension Of Limitation Period By Hon’Ble Supreme Court In Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 Of 2020 Dated 10.01.2022 By Which The Period From 15.03.2020 To 28.02.2022 Has Been Directed To Be Excluded For The Purpose Of Limitation & A Further Period Of 90 Days Has Been Granted For Providing The Limitation From 01.03.2022, We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing This Appeal & Admit The Same For Adjudication.

Section 143(3)Section 68

adjudication and to pass a speaking order after considering the submissions and evidences to be filed by the assessee on being provided sufficient opportunity of being heard. We further direct the assessee to remain compliant and not to take adjournment unless and otherwise required for reasonable cause and if assessee

M/S Kotalipara Development Society, Barasat vs. I.T.O.(Exemption), Ward-1(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 164/KOL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.164/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Kotalipara Development Society....................................................…… …. Appellant Pioneer Para, Noapara, P.O. Barasat, North 24 Parganas, W.B. 700124. [Pan:Aaaak3272B] Vs. Ito(Exemption), Ward-1(4), Kolkata........................................................….. Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 13, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 21, 2022 आदेश / Order

Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 250

that various documents filed by the assessee has not been considered I.T.A No.164/Kol/2020 Assessment year: 2013-14 M/s Kotalipara Development Society and proper opportunity of being heard was not given, we, therefore, in the interest of justice and being fair to both the parties, remit the issue raised on merits ... adjudication and to pass a speaking order after considering the submissions and evidences to be filed by the assessee on being provided sufficient opportunity of being heard. We, also, direct the assessee to remain compliant and not to take adjournment unless and otherwise required for reasonable cause and if assessee

Subrahmanyam Jagarlamudi, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 414/HYD/2022[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad20 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Subrahmanyam Vs. Income Tax Officer Jagarlamudi, Hyderabad Ward 11(1) Pan: Acxpj5454G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Mohd.Fazal Revenue By: Shri Naveen Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 20/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/12/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Ex-Parte Order Dated 28/06/2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-10, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2013-14. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Ex-Parte Order Of The Learned Cit (A) In Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Assessee & Thereby Confirming The Addition Of Rs.1,48,15,901/- Made By The Assessing Officer As Unexplained Income.

For Appellant: Advocate Mohd.FazalFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Kumar, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

matter should be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the issue afresh after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. The learned DR, on the other hand, referring to the assessment order as well as the CIT (A) order submitted ... with evidence to his satisfaction. Needless to say the Assessing Officer shall decide the issue as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes

Raja Gopal Reddy Goli, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward-11(5), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Raja Gopal Reddy Goli Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 11(5) Pan:Bbwpg4389J Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Smt. S. Sandhya Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 13/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/12/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 6.6.2019 Of The Learned Pr.Cit-5 Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2015-16. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under: 1. The Order Of The Ld. Pr. Cit Is Erroneous Both On Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld. Pr. Cit Erred In Holding That There Is Error In The Order U/S 143(3) Dated 19.12.2017 3. The Ld. Pr. Cit Ought To Have Considered The Facts That The Assessing Officer While Completing The Assessment U/S 143(3) Considered All The Facts & Circumstances & Arrived At The Total Income. 4. The Ld. Pr. Cit Erred In Holding That The Assessment Order Is Erroneous & Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue. 5. Any Other Ground That May Be Urged At The Time Of Hearing.“ Page 1 Of 12

For Appellant: Advocate Smt. S. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

evidence. The Assessing Officer is, therefore, directed to treat Rs. 10,00,000/- as the agricultural income of the assessee after allowing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. In view Or the above discussions, it is established that there was incorrect application of law which constitutes an error ... case of the assessee-company is set aside to redo the assessment after examining the issues as discussed above and after allowing opportunity of being heard to the assessee.” Page 6 of 12 ITA 139 of 2021 Raj Gopal Reddy Goli 8. Aggrieved with such order of the learned