“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

Surplus Finvest P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-11, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1971/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi, Advocate, a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam, CIT - DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 253(3)Section 263

erred in framing the revision order u/s 263 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 [the Act"] by not giving proper, sufficient and effective opportunity of being heard to the Appellant; 1.2 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the revision order

Rialto Exim, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 2316/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Rialto Exim 907, Jewel World, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai-400002 Pan: Aakfr3441G ...... Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward-14(3)(2), Earnest House, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400 021. ..... Respondent Ito, Ward-14(3)(2), Earnest House, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400 021. ..... Appellant Vs. M/S Rialto Exim 907, Jewel World, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai-400002 Pan: Aakfr3441G ...... Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Sh. Jayant Bhatt Respondent/Respondent By : Sh. Dharmvir Yadav/Sh. R.A. Dhyani Date Of Hearing : 20/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/09/2022

For Appellant: Sh. Jayant BhattFor Respondent: Sh. Dharmvir Yadav/Sh. R.A. Dhyani

Section 10Section 10ASection 133ASection 143(2)Section 145

first ground of appeal challenges violation of principle of natural justice in not granting proper, sufficient, fair and adequate opportunity of being heard in the assessment proceeding by the AO. This ground of appeal is not pressed by the appellant. It is seen from the assessment order that enough opportunities

Smt.Adithyapan Amutha, Chennai vs. ACIT, Non-Corporate Circle-10(1), Chennai

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

ITA 74/CHNY/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

remand the matter back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and for passing a speaking order after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court

M/S Pravin Basantilal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 29(2)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 534/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Section 148Section 151Section 68

learned CIT(A) and restore all the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for examining them afresh. After affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the Assessing Officer may take appropriate decision in accordance with law. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee

DCIT-9(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Allied Offshore Services P. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1520/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kant

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80G

have agreed to the proposition mooted out that the case should be remanded back to the AO who will decide afresh after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee by specifically addressing the issue that there is no double taxation qua the commission taken in advance by the assessee ... passed by the Ld. CIT(A) are hereby set aside and case is remanded back to the AO to decide afresh by providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee in the light of the observations made hereinabove. Consequently, aforesaid appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

DCIT - 9 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Allied Offshore Servies P. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1519/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kant

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80G

DCIT - 9(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Allied Offshore Services P. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1518/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kant

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80G

Hsbc Professional Services (I) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(2), Mumbai

ITA 8823/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jcit-8(2), (Osd), M/S Hsbc Professional Services Room No. 216-A, Aayakar (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Kamla Bhavan, Swami Nityanand Mumbai-400020. Marg, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400069. Pan No. Aabch 0705 R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Hsbc Professional Services The Deputy Commissioner Of (India) Private Limited, Income-Tax Range 8(2), 6Th Floor, Shiv Building, Cts Vs. Mumbai. No. 139 & 140B, Sahar Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aabch 0705 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Niraj Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Mr. V.K. Agarwal, Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/09/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V.K. Agarwal, DR

Section 92CSection 92C(2)Section 92D

needless to mention that assessee shall be afforded adequate is needless to mention that assessee shall be afforded adequate opportunity of being h opportunity of being heard on the issue in dispute. 2. Asit C Mehta financial services ( Asit C Mehta financial services ([Nucleus netsoft and GIS netsoft

DCIT RG 8(2) (OSD), Mumbai vs. Hsbc Professional Services (I) P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 8753/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2022AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Mr. Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V.K. Agarwal, DR

Section 92CSection 92C(2)Section 92D

Biocon Biologics Limited (Formerly Known As Biocon Biologics India Limited) (Successor to Biocon Research Limited), Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 299/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm It(Tp)A No.299/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/S.Biocon Biologics Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Biocon Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1) V. Biologics India Limited) Bengaluru. Ground Floor, Tower 3, Semicon Park, Hosur Road, Electronics City S.O. Bangalore South – 560 100. Pan : Aagcb7796M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Respondent By : Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 26.02.2022 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-2018. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee, Namely, Biocon Biologics Limited [Successor. To Biocon Research Limited With Appointed Date 01.04.2019] Is Engaged In The Carrying Out Research & Development ("R & D") Of Drugs & Drug Delivery Systems. For The Relevant Assessment Year ("Ay") 2017-18, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.11.2017, Declaring `Nil’ Income Under The Normal Provisions Of The I.T.Act & Book Losses As 2 It(Tp)A No.299/Bang/2022. M/S.Biocon Biologics Limited Per The Provisions Of Section 115Jb Of The I.T.Act. After Considering The Taxes Deducted At Source, The Assessee Had Claimed Refund Of Inr 4,68,29,020 In The Return Of Income.

For Appellant: Sri.Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

violation of the principles of natural justice. 5.2. not providing any reasons for disallowing the foreign exchange loss and without providing any opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. 5.3. disallowing the foreign exchange loss on fixed assets amounting to Rs.1,36,423, without appreciating the fact that the Appellant

Sri. Krishna Diamonds, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 232/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Goutham, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT (DR)

Section 234BSection 92B

virtue of the aforesaid amendments, the AO is required to adjudicate the issue of claim of expenditures in accordance with law after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We therefore set aside the orders of the AO and the DRP and restore the matter to the AO with ... also not to seek adjournment for early disposal of the case and the AO is directed to give three effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 12. The ld.AR of the assessee has not pressed Ground no. 3-7, therefore, the remaining grounds raised by the assessee is dismissed

Nxp India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 264/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

active components and 19 inch heavy racks, the position remains the same, in as much as the AO has not given due opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. Before DRP the Assessee has explained the nature of the components and racks on which depreciation was claimed ... take into account the decision of the special bench in the case of Datacraft India Ltd(supra), after affording the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and to file details / submissions required. It is ordered accordingly. This issue is allowed for statistical purposes only. 30. Ground No.12 is regarding

M/S Bosch Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle-1, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1629/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14 Bosch Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Hosur Road, Adugodi, Of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore – 560 030. Circle 1, Pan: Aaacm 9840P Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Advocate Respondent By : Shri V S Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.2. This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals), Bangalore-9, Bangalore Dated 31.3.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013- 14. 3. The Assessee Raised Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:- Deduction U/S. 35(2Ab) Computed On Net Expenditure As Opposed To Gross Expenditure Disallowance Of Provision For Bad & Doubtful Debts I) Disallowance Of Provision For Long Term Service Award Disallowance Of Expenditure U/S. 14A Of The Act Ii) Page 2 Of 67

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 14ASection 35Section 37Section 43BSection 80J

Appeals) and restore the matter to the file of the AO for readjudication of issue Page 41 of 67 afresh after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee in the terms indicated above.” 64. We are of the view that in the light of the parity of facts between ... would be just and appropriate to remand the issue to the AO for fresh consideration to decide the issue afresh after considering opportunity of being heard to the assessee. DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80JJAA 65. Ground No.10 raised by the assessee reads as follows: “10. DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80JJAA

Sree Subha Sales, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 682/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19

For Respondent: Shri B.R. Sudheendra

Ramco Cements Ltd. vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre reported in [2022] 139 taxmann.com 81 5. We note that assessee was denied the opportunity of being heard, and the NFAC simply proceeded to dispose the appeal on the basis of the materials available on record. In view of the above discussions ... decide the issue based on the evidences filed in accordance with law and pass a detailed order. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be given to the assessee. In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open

M/S. Indian Cane Power Limited, Davangere vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 443/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Prathibha R, Advocate

outset, we note that none had appeared before the Ld.CIT(A) and assessee was not given proper opportunity of being heard by the Ld.CIT(A). Para 3 of the impugned order records the dates of notices issued to the assessee. We also note that the date of filing ... direction to dispose of the appeal on merits by passing a detailed order in accordance with law. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be given to the assessee. In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bengaluru vs. M/S.Ozone Properties Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru

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

ITA 95/BANG/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Sept 2022AY 2014-2015

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Ozone Properties The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 38, Ozone Group, Income Tax, Ulsoor Road, Central Circle – 2(1), Ulsoor, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 042. Pan: Aaaco6672M Appellant Respondent & C.O.No. 01/Bang/2022 (In Ita No. 95/Bang/2022) (By Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Kodandapani, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee & Revenue Against Order Dated 30.11.2021 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Kodandapani, CA

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 154

95/Bang/2022 & C.O. No. 01/Bang/2022 profit has to be computed in accordance with law. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to assessee. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes. The Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

R V Deshpande HUF, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 340/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S V Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

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 ... Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it/s prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making an enquiry pass an order modifying the assessment made by the Assessing Officer or cancelling the assessment and directing fresh

Devappa Muniraju, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(2)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 981/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vishal S. Rao, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Shankar Prasad K., Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 2(14)Section 234ASection 234BSection 48Section 54B

verification of the confirmations from the 3 parties and decide the allowability of the claim in accordance with law, after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 15. With regard to landscaping and other expenses claimed, the ld. AR submitted additional evidence before us and prayed for admission ... remit this issue to the AO for Page 9 of 11 consideration of the AO and decision in accordance with law, after reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 17. With regard to expenses at the time of purchase, landscaping and other expenses claimed in the computation of capital

Divya Raghavan Vijayan, Kalyan vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS) WD 1, Thane

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

ITA 1772/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

learned CIT(A) to his file for adjudicating them afresh alongwith remaining appeals that are going to be filed. After affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the learned CIT(A) may take appropriate decision in accordance with law. 9. In the result, both the appeals filed

Divya Raghavan Vijayan, Kalyan vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS) WD 1, Thane

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

ITA 1771/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2022AY 2014-15