“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

Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Mumbai vs. JCIT, Central Range-8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

ITA 6124/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit-Cc 8(3), 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Jcit, Central Range-8, 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit- Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Rushabh Mehta, AR

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 50Section 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP

Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Range-8 (3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

ITA 6123/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Rushabh Mehta, AR

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 50Section 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP

M/S.Mehulkumar Rameshkumar & Co., Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-2(4), Mumbai

ITA 2222/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Azhar Zain Vayal Parambath, D.R

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153A

appellant's case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred ... above, impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby set aside to be decided by Ld. CIT(A) afresh after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Needless to say that the assessee shall appear before the Ld. CIT(A) on each and every date fixed. Order

Aker Powergas P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 15(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2213/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(3)Section 92C

matter is remitted back to the TPO to decide afresh in the light of the APA already entered into by providing opportunity of being heard to the tax payer. So aforesaid grounds 1.1 to 1.10 are determined in favour of the assessee for statistical purposes. Corporate Grounds: Ground No.2

Shirish M Dalvi, Kalyan vs. DCIT Cir 29(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, we uphold the finding of Ld CIT(A). The ground No. four of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed

ITA 4640/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit Circle-23(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala 3Rd Floor, C-10, Pratyaksha Vs. Complex, Sahajanand Kar Bhavan, Bandra East, Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit Circle-23(3), Shirish M. Dalvi, Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C-10 D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Vs. Bldg., Pratyakshakar Complex, Sahajanand Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit-29(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C- Vs. Complex, Sahajanand 10, Pratyaksha Kar Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H

from Indian space research Organisation (ISRO) for verifying the claim of horticulture activity of the assessee. It is needless to mention that adequate opportunity of being heard should be provided to the assessee.The objection of the assessee against treating the income from sale of ‘Dushami land’ as business income ... confront the same to the assessee before adjudication on the same. It is needless to mention that assessee shall be offered adequate opportunity of being heard. 31. The second issue in dispute is regarding completion of the housing project. The contention of the assessee is that each building

DCIT Cir 23(3), Mumbai vs. Shirish M Dalvi, Mumbai

Accordingly, we uphold the finding of Ld CIT(A). The ground No. four of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed

ITA 4317/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

M/S. Biesse Manufacturing Company Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 338/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri, Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar K. Ganeshan, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 92C

examined afresh by the AO/TPO on the guidelines laid down in the decision referred to in the earlier paragraph, after affording Assessee opportunity of being heard. As held in the aforesaid decision the prime lending rate should not be considered and this reasoning will apply to adopting short term deposit

Regan Powertech Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-5(1), Chennai

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

ITA 569/CHNY/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.568 & 569/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/S. Regen Powertech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Sivanandam,, No. 1, Pulla Avenue, Income Tax, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai 600 030. Corporate Circle 5(1), Chennai. [Pan:Aadcr5531M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao:

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 250

installed on or before 31.03.2012 or on or after 01.04.2012 and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We make it clear that if the said windmills and any specially designed devices which run on 8 I.T.A

Regan Powertech Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-5(1), Chennai

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

ITA 568/CHNY/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 250

Vairavan Kamaraja, Chennai vs. DCIT Non Corporate Circle-(8)1, Chennai

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

ITA 2724/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2724/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Vairavan Kamaraja, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 36, First Main Road, Income Tax, Alwarthirunagar, Chennai 600 087. Non Corporate Circle 8(1), Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Ahapk2551R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Veeraraghavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Varuvooru Sreedhar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao:

For Appellant: Shri V. Veeraraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Varuvooru Sreedhar, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 68

verify the details as may be filed by the assessee and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to furnish all the details before the Assessing Officer for verification and deciding the issue. Accordingly

Veekay Farms, Mumbai vs. Asst Comm of Income Tax 25(1) Mumbai Old Dy.Comm of Income Tax 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1853/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Acit 25(1) Old Dy.Cit Veekay Farms, 17(1) Room No. Kb 117, F/99, Opposite Marriot, Kautilya Bhavan, North Bombay Co-Op Society, Vs. Juhu, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 049 Mumbai-400 051

For Appellant: Shri. R N Vasani, B T ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri. Nishant Somaiya, DR

Section 133(6)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

bogus purchases as alleged by him are made by the appellant firm. He made an addition on assumption and presumption without giving an opportunity of being heard. (3) He failed to appreciate the facts that these suppliers were neither identified as hawalasuppliers by sales tax authorities nor any specific findings

ACIT-13(1) (2), Mumbai vs. Oommen Chackalyil Chacko, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1620/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Kedar PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Santhil Kumaran

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

issue in the appeal is remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, after giving the Appellant/Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Since the issue is being remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) all the rights and contentions are left open. With

M/S. Olive Bar & Kitchen Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst Dir of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1556/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh O. RajoraFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

both the appeals are remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving the Appellant/Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Since the issues are being remanded back all the rights and contentions are left open. With the aforesaid directions, the present appeals stand disposed

Janyuvak Kalyan Co. Op. Credit Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-27, Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1002/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

meaning of section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. In view of the above facts, you are hereby given an opportunity of being heard and show-cause as to why an order enhancing or modifying the assessment or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment within ... source of cash deposits made in old currency notes during the demonetization period i.e. 08.11.2016 to 31.12.2016. Before completing the assessment a reasonable opportunity of being heard shall allowed to the assessee by the AO.” 5. Being aggrieved the Appellant/Assessee has preferred the present appeal against the order, dated

Ashwin S. Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 2735/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleashwin S. Mehta V. Dcit – Central Circle – 23 32, Madhuli, Dr. A.B. Road [Now Dcit, Cc-4(1)] Worli, Mumbai – 400018 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Abapm2121M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 14A

records submitted by the assessee on merit and as per law. It is needless to say that assessee may be given a proper opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose. 47. In the result, both

Ashwin S. Mehta, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 2734/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 14A

Ashwin S. Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 23, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 422/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 14A

M/S. Ssjv Projects Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1)(3), Bengaluru

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

ITA 866/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Ssjv Projects Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ground Floor, No.21/6, Ward – 6[1][3], Craig Park Layout, M. G. Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 001. Pan : Aaacu 3698 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. K. R. Narayan, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.07.2022 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, In Relation To Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Ao Passed The Order Of Assessment Under Section 143(3) Dated 31.03.2016. Against The Additions Made In The Said Order, Assessee Filed An Appeal Before The Cit(A) – 6, Bengaluru Who Disposed Off The Appeal By An Order Dated 09.02.2018. Against The Said Aforesaid Orders Of The Cit(A), Assesse Filed Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Itat. The Hon’Ble Itat In Ita Nos.2195 & 2196/Bang/2018, Order Dated 24.02.2018, Remanded The Matter To The Cit(A) For Fresh Consideration. Page 2 Of 5

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. R. Narayan, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 250

appeal memo. In the given facts and circumstances, we are satisfied that the assessee was not afforded proper opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A). We, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the case to the CIT(A) for a fresh disposal ... various grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page. (CHANDRA POOJARI) Vice President Bangalore, Dated

Ravikumar Tirupati Parthasarathy, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 676/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Arjun Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144C

purpose of arriving at the capital gains in accordance with law. Needless to say that the assessee may be given an opportunity of being heard. 17. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on this 28th day of October

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Spoorthi Constructions, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and the CO is partly allowed

ITA 507/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sagar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V P Pavan Kumar

Section 143(2)Section 41(1)

file of AO to examine the evidences afresh and decide the allowability in accordance with law after affording the assessee sufficient opportunity of being heard. & CO No.3/Bang/2022 Page 5 of 9 7. With regard to addition made u/s. 41(1), the ld. AR submitted that the said liability is reflected ... issue back to the AO to cross-examine the confirmations submitted by the assessee with regard to sundry creditors after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The AO is directed to keep in mind the order of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of B.T. Nagaraja