“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

Asst. Comm of Income Tax 3(2) (1), Mumbai vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai

ITA 1566/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Life Insurance Dcit 3(2)(1), Corporation Of India, Room No.608, Central Office, Aayakar Bhavan, F&A Department, Maharshi Karve Road, Vs. 3Rd Floor, West Wing, New Marine Lines, “Yogakshema”, Mumbai - 400020 Jeevan Bima Marg, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacl0582H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit 3(2)(1), M/S. Life Insurance Room No.674, 6Th Floor, Corporation Of India, Aayakar Bhavan, Central Office, M.K. Road, Vs. Yogakshema, Mumbai - 400020 Jeevan Bima Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 005 Pan: Aaacl0582H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anish Thacker, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Jagadish Jangid, D.R

Section 147Section 14ASection 250Section 44Section 80G

India 12. Since identical issue for the earlier years has already been remanded back to the AO to decide afresh after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee the issue qua the year under consideration is also required to be remitted back to the AO to decide afresh

Mahendra Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)(3), Mumbai

ITA 1031/MUM/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Azhar Zain Vayal Parambath, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 145Section 147Section 148

NATURAL JUSTICE 2.1 The Ld, CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the A.O. in not granting proper, sufficient and adequate opportunity of being heard to the Appellant while framing the assessment. 2.2 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case ... rejected on the basis of hyper technical grounds. It is cardinal principle of natural justice that assessee must be given fair and adequate opportunity of being heard before deciding the issue raised by him. Moreover, the assessee cannot be punished for the negligence or ignorance of his representative

L & T Infra Debt Fund Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 809/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Section 10(47)Section 148Section 148ASection 263

proceedings de novo. The assessment proceedings shall be completed after proper examination of all the relevant issues, and after giving the assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard.” 9. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the view that impugned revision order passed by Ld CIT(E) does

Hope India Foundation, Navi Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT, Panvel

ITA 2002/MUM/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Mantri, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anul Gupta, D.R

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

decide the issue once for all I am of the considered view that complete investigation is required by the AO by providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee to which both AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) have agreed. Consequently, impugned order passed ... aside and case is remitted back to AO to decide afresh after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Resultantly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 29.09.2022. (KULDIP SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 29.09.2022. * Kishore, Sr. P.S. Copy

Harakh Samir Mehta, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Ward 19 (2), Mumbai

ITA 6408/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

Appeals) - 53, Mumbai ["Ld. CIT (A)"] erred in not granting proper, sufficient and 2 Shri Harakh Samir Mehta Alisa Nihar Samir Mehta adequate opportunity of being heard to the Appellant while framing the appellate order. 1.2 It is submitted that, in the facts and the circumstances of the case

Dilip B Patel, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(4), Mumbai

ITA 4702/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta, D.R

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

come on record that during assessment proceedings the assessee has vehemently pleaded and contended that he has not been provided with an opportunity of being heard nor has been provided with the documents relied upon. 7. It is also a matter of record that the assessee has not been supplied ... court for the first two dates. In these circumstances, I am of the considered view that assessee has not been provided with adequate opportunity of being heard by the AO which is a mandatory requirement to comply with the rule of natural justice. To decide the issue once

M/S.Social Education & Welfare Association, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-14(3)(3), Mumbai

ITA 3986/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, D.R

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 271B

Nos.4605 & 4606/M/2017 for A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 respectively are required to be remitted back to the AO to decide afresh after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 17. Appeal bearing ITA No.3986/M/2018 for A.Y. 2009-10 challenging the penalty levied by the AO and confirmed

Mr Sanjay R Tarukhia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(3)(4), Mumbai

ITA 2551/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Choksi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Azhar Zain Vayal Parambath, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 69A

assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the case back to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide afresh on merits after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Resultantly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 29.09.2022. (KULDIP

Social Education and Welfare Association, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-14(3)(3), Mumbai

ITA 4606/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, D.R

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 271B

Social Education and Welfare Association, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-14(3)(3), Mumbai

ITA 4605/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, D.R

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 271B

M/S. Atharvass Traders LLP (Earlier Atharvass Traders Private Limited), Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 754/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Atharvass Traders Llp (Earlier Atharvass Traders Pvt. Ltd.), The Income Tax 902, 9Th A Cross, Officer, 6Th Main, West Of Ward 1 (1)(2), Chord Road, Bengaluru. Vs. 2Nd Phase, Bengaluru – 560 086. Pan: Aafca0382D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Preethi, Advocate : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue By Baseganni, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 29-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 15/07/2022 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore For A.Y. 2016-17. 2. Assessee Has Raised Ground No. 2 Wherein A Plea Of Non- Granting Of Sufficient Opportunity Of Being Heard Has Been Alleged. 3. On Perusal Of The Record, We Note That Assessee Was Not Able To File The Evidences / Documentation In Respect Of The Creditors

For Appellant: Smt. Preethi, Advocate

Section 68

Ld.CIT(A)-11, Bangalore for A.Y. 2016-17. 2. Assessee has raised Ground no. 2 wherein a plea of non- granting of sufficient opportunity of being heard has been alleged. 3. On perusal of the record, we note that assessee was not able to file the evidences / documentation in respect

Commscope India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Andrew Telecommunications India Private Limited), Goa vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 678/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Commscope India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Andrew The Commissioner Telecommunications Of Income Tax India Pvt. Ltd.), (Appeals), Plot No. N2, Phase Iv, Nfac, Verna Industrial Vs. Delhi. Estate Verna, Salcete, Goa – 403 722. Pan: Aabca8820A Appellant Respondent : Ms. Vaidehi G., Ca & Assessee By Shri Dhiraj R, Advocate : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue By Baseganni, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Order Dated 06/09/2021 Passed By Nfac, Delhi For A.Y. 2014-15. 2. The Only Allegation Raised By The Ld.Ar Is That The Ld.Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal By Holding As Under:

For Respondent: Ms. Vaidehi G., CA &

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 201Section 4

Ld.CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue on merits by passing a detailed order. Page 3 of 3 Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to assessee. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, the appeal filed

Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 584/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Mrs. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, CIT DR

Section 10Section 10(23)(C)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 154Section 234B

intimation issued u/s. 143(1) of the Act. She submitted that such disallowance cannot be made without granting opportunity of being heard to the assessee. She submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) in the impugned order upheld the disallowance by observing that no details were filed in the audit report ... Page 14 of 15 ITA Nos. 584 & 563/Bang/2022 4.5 In the interest of justice, we remand this issue back to Ld.AO to grant opportunity of being heard to assessee in a physical hearing and to consider the claim in accordance with law. Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No. 563/Bang/2022 stands

Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 563/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Mrs. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, CIT DR

Section 10Section 10(23)(C)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 154Section 234B

Ge Be Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 304/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.304/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Vs. Dcit, M/S. Ge Be Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 3(1)(1), 60, Export Promotion Industrial Park, Bengaluru. Whitefield, Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacg 6714 A Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Aliasgar Rampurawala, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.09.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Aliasgar Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

directed to be examined by the TPO/AO afresh in the light of the decision of the tribunal referred to above, after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. IT(TP)A No.304/Bang/2022 Page 18 of 18 20. No other grounds were pressed for adjudication except relief stated above ... directed to compute the ALP of the international transaction after giving effect to the directions contained in this order, after affording assessee opportunity of being heard. 21. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed. Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption

Hp Pps Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 278/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 278/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Hp Pps Services India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 24, Salarpuria Commissioner Of Arena, Income Tax, Hosur Main Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Adugodi, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 030. Pan: Aadch5825N Appellant Respondent : Shri Padamchand Assessee By Khincha, Ca : Shri Binod Kumar Singh, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 22-08-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Assessment Order Dated 29/03/2021 Passed By National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi For A.Y. 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “The Appellant Submits That: I. Transfer Pricing The Grounds Mentioned Hereinafter Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 1. The Learned Assessing Officer ('Learned Ao'), Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ('Learned Tpo') & The Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel ('Hon'Ble Drp')

For Respondent: Shri Padamchand

computed it at 23.55%. The Page 23 IT(TP)A No. 278/Bang/2021 TPO is directed to recalculate the RPT/sales ratio by providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. So this comparable is remitted back to the Ld. TPO to decide afresh.” “Nihilent Analytics Ltd. (Nihilent) 44. The assessee sought ... based on the details filed by the assessee. The Ld.AO is directed to verify the same in accordance with Law, by granting proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly Ground 13 raised by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. 14. The Ld.AR also prayed for a direction

M/S. Karnataka State Beverages Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore - 4, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 397/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

For Respondent: Shri Narendra Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

with a direction to the Assessing Officer to examine the aforesaid issue and redo the assessment afresh as per law after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.” 2.6 Against the said order, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. The Ld.AR submitted that subsequent ... thus directed to file all the details / evidences in support of its contention which shall be verified by the Ld.AO by granting proper opportunity of being heard in accordance with law. Accordingly, the grounds raised by assessee stands partly allowed. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Officer Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Fmc India Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2732/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Fmc India Pvt. The Assistant Ltd., Commissioner Of Embassy Star 1St Floor, Income Tax, No. 8 Palace Road, Circle 3(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 052. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaacf4579N Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2013-14 (By Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. S. Praveena, Cit Drp-2 Date Of Hearing : 07-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against Order Dated 23/07/2018 Passes By The Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, CIT DRP-2

Section 250Section 37(1)

justice we remand this issue back to the Ld.AO/TPO to consider this claim in accordance with law. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. Accordingly Ground 9 in assessee’s appeal and Grounds 3-4 in revenue’s appeal stands allowed

M/S Fmc India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2611/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, CIT DRP-2

Section 250Section 37(1)

M/S Herbalife International India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-11(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 2068/BANG/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2003-04 M/S. Herbalife International India The Deputy Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of #14, Pardhanani Income Tax, Wilshire, Circle – 11(4), Commissariat Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan: Aaach8025R Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2005-06 M/S. Herbalife International India The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of #14, Pardhanani Income Tax, Wilshire, Circle – 11(4), Commissariat Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan: Aaach8025R Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Assessee By Khincha, Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 06-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-09-2022

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand

Section 250Section 253

principles laid down in various decisions of this Tribunal as well as that of assessee on similar issues. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to assessee in accordance with law. Accordingly, this appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. In the result