← 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

M/S Sun Direct Tv Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, NFAC, Chennai

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

ITA 861/CHNY/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 861/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16 M/S. Sun Direct Tv Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 73, Murasoli Maran Towers, Income Tax, Mrc Nagar Main Road, Non Corporate Circle 7(1), Chennai 600 028. Chennai. [Pan:Aaics7671L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Ramakrishnan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Boopathi, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi, Dated 26.08.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Original Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2015-16 On 24.11.2015 Admitting Total Loss At ₹.123,55,22,939/-. Subsequently, The Return Was 2

For Appellant: Shri K. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. Boopathi, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

occupied and could not put his appearance before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. Counsel for the assessee has prayed that opportunity of being heard to the assessee may kindly be accorded so that the assessee can substantiate its claim before the ld. CIT(A). 3 I.T.A. No.861/Chny/22 ... before us, and to meet the ends of natural justice, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee shall be given an opportunity of being heard to the assessee to substantiate its claim before the ld. CIT(A). In view of the above, we set aside the order passed

Randstad Offshore Services Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 859/CHNY/2022[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 859/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Randstad Offshore Services Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, V. Income Tax, Old No. 5 & 5A, New No. 9, Circle -1, Ltu, Pycrofts Garden Road, Chennai – 600 034. Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006. [Pan: Aabcc-4682-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N.V. Narayanan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Bhoopathi, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022

For Appellant: Shri. N.V. Narayanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Bhoopathi, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

against the principles of equity and natural justice. 1.2 The CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 1.3 The learned CIT(A) erred in stating in the order that a notice was issued on 06.05.2022 on the grounds of equity ... Intimation passed by the CPC u/s 143(1) without appreciating the fact that an intimation passed without providing the Appellant with a reasonable opportunity of being heard is void ab initio and hence, the disallowance made is invalid. 3.2 The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact

Natarajan Pillai Padmanabhan, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward-5(3), Chennai

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

ITA 153/CHNY/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 152 & 153/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 Shri Nataraja Pillai Padmanabhan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 14, Jai Balaji Nagar, Corporate Ward 5(3), Thirumalai Street, Nesapakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 078. [Pan:Albpp8266H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Chennai, Dated 06.12.2018 & Dated 13.11.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. No. 153/Chny/2022 Is Delayed By 788 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal, Out Of Which 725 Days Are Coming Under Covid-19 Pandemic Period & 63 Days Delay

For Appellant: Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)

prayed made before the Bench, we are of the considered opinion that in order to meet the ends of natural justice, one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee may be accorded. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back ... consider the details as may be filed by the assessee and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law by affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 4 I.T.A. Nos.152 & 153/Chny/22 6. So far as appeal

Nataraja Pillai Padmanabhan, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-5(3), Chennai

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

ITA 152/CHNY/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 152 & 153/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 Shri Nataraja Pillai Padmanabhan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 14, Jai Balaji Nagar, Corporate Ward 5(3), Thirumalai Street, Nesapakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 078. [Pan:Albpp8266H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Chennai, Dated 06.12.2018 & Dated 13.11.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. No. 153/Chny/2022 Is Delayed By 788 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal, Out Of Which 725 Days Are Coming Under Covid-19 Pandemic Period & 63 Days Delay

For Appellant: Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)

prayed made before the Bench, we are of the considered opinion that in order to meet the ends of natural justice, one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee may be accorded. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back ... consider the details as may be filed by the assessee and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law by affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 4 I.T.A. Nos.152 & 153/Chny/22 6. So far as appeal

Dhanroop Betala and Sons (HUF), Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 4(3), Chennai

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

ITA 1442/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1442/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 Dhanroop Betala & Sons (Huf), The Principal Commissioner Of Flat No. L-107, Oswal Garden, Vs. Income Tax – 9, No. 210-212, C.B. Road, Korrukpet, Chennai. Chennai 600 021. [Pan:Aachd0325D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai, Dated 21.11.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

data available in the investigation 4 I.T.A. No.1442/Chny/19 report of the Investigation Wing at Kolkata and in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. When the appeal was finally taken ... data available in the investigation report of the Investigation Wing at 5 I.T.A. No.1442/Chny/19 Kolkata and in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We have carefully gone through the revision order passed under section 263 of the Act and find that