“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

Immarsat Global Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose and ground raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 626/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleinmarsat Global Limited V. Dcit (It) – 2(2)(1) Ernst & Young Llp Room No. 1722, 17Th Floor 14Th Floor, The Ruby Air India Building, Nariman Point 29 Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai – 400021 Dadar (W), Mumbai – 400028 Pan: Aaaci6098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Aarati Sathe Department By : Ms. Bharati Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Aarati SatheFor Respondent: Ms. Bharati Singh

Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S

Bhakti Trust, Mumbai-400088 vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 1282/MUM/2022[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri N.B. GandhiFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade

Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(a)Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

M/S. Yelahanka - Ap Border Tollways Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 458/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Yelahanka-Ap Border Tollways Pvt. Ltd., # 702, Provident The Income-Tax Welworth City, Officer, Yelahanka- Ward – 7[1][4], Doddaballapur Road, Bengaluru. Vs. Marashandra, Bengaluru – 562 163. Pan: Aaacy7243E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit Revenue By Dr Itat Date Of Hearing : 08-08-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 28/03/2022 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate

Section 133Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 41Section 68

respect of the evidences filed by the assessee and to consider the claim 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 assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open

Terrier Security Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 347/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80J

grounds which are different from the grounds in the show cause notice. 2.2 The learned PCIT has erred in not providing any opportunity of being heard in relation to points on which the assessment order is considered to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 2.3 The learned

Terrier Security Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 346/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80J

Ramzanali Asgar Khan, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 246/BANG/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri. Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 68

hereinafter called ‘the Act’). Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. At the outset, the learned AR submitted that a proper opportunity of being heard was not offered to him to explain these credits found credited in the bank account of the assessee. Further, it was submitted that

Ramzanali Asgar Khan, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 245/BANG/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri. Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 68

Eit Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 210/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92D

party transactions at 37.58% whereas the Ld. TPO computed it at 23.55%. The 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

Ambitious Plastomac Company Limited, Mumbai vs. The DCIT, Central Circle -39, Mumbai

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

ITA 1484/MUM/2022[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2022AY 2008-2009

Bench: The Ao Nor Did It File Return Of Income. Hence The Assessing

Section 144

assessee by duly considering the information and explanations that may be furnished 3 Ambitious Plastomac Company Limited by the assessee. After providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the AO may take appropriate decision in accordance with law. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee

M/S. Ozone Properties Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS, Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 244/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri J.V. Kodhandapani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 193Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 40

allowability in the light of the decision in the case of Biocon Ltd. (supra). Needless to mention that the assessee may be given opportunity of being heard. It is ordered accordingly. 12. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court

M/S. Course5 Intelligence Private Limited (Formerly Cross Tab Marketing Services Private Limited), Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 15/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Course5 Intelligence Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Cross Tab Marketing Services The Deputy Pvt. Ltd.) Commissioner Of No. 422, 80 Feet Income Tax, Road, Circle – 2(1)(1), 6Th Block, Vs. Bangalore. Koramangala, Bangalore – 560 095. Pan: Aabcc6525A Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri Srinivas Rao Bandaru, Revenue By Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 14/10/2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-2, Bangalore For A.Y. 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Assessing Officer Had Erred In Passing The Order In The Manner Passed By Him & The Learned Cit (A) Has Erred In Partially Confirming The Same. The Orders Passed Being Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed.

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand Khincha

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 234B

documents in support of and as called by the Ld.AO in order to adjudicate this issue. The Ld.AO is directed to give proper opportunity of being heard to assessee. Accordingly, Ground nos. 2-3 raised by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. 8. Ground no. 4 is in respect ... against the business income. The Ld.AO is directed to consider this claim of assessee 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

M/S Gokula Education Foundation, Bangalore vs. Additional Director of Income Tax Range-17, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 945/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dev Ratan Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

examine the facts from the record produced by the assessee and decide the issue in accordance with law, after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes.” 11. Respectfully following the above decision of the Tribunal, we remit the issue back ... refundable or not, based on the records produced by the assessee and decide the allowability in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 12. The ground raised by the assessee with regard to unutilized grants being treated as income regard reads follows

Hp India Sales Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

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

ITA 524/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.524/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Hp India Sales Private The Joint Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known As Income-Tax, Ltu V. Bangalore. Hewlett-Packard India Sales Private Limited), 24 Salarpuria Area, Hosur Main Road, Adugodi Bangalore – 560 030. Pan : Aaacc9862F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Ajay Vohra, Senior Counsel / Sri. Neeraj Jain, Sri.Lalit Attal & Sri.Karon Dhanuka, Advoicates Respondent By : Sri.Harishchandra Naik, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2022 Date Of Hearing : 27.07.2022 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 03.01.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2012-2013. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In Import Of Computer Peripherals From Its Associated Enterprises (Aes) For Sale In India & Also Rendered Certain Support Services. The Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2012-2013 Was Filed On 29.02.2012, Admitting Total Income Of Rs.544,61,99,276. The Return Was Revised On 25.03.2014

For Appellant: Sri.Ajay Vohra, Senior Counsel / Sri. Neeraj JainFor Respondent: Sri.Harishchandra Naik, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92BSection 92C

terms of adjustment of TDS credit and negative movement in the deferred revenue. The AO is directed accordingly and that a reasonable opportunity of being heard to be given to the assessee before the final decision. This ground of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes." 23. Following the above ... terms of adjustment of TDS credit and negative movement in the deferred revenue. The AO is directed accordingly and that a reasonable opportunity of being heard to be given to the assessee before the final decision. Grounds 6, 6.1 & 6.2 24. The above grounds were not pressed by the learned

Dell India Private Ltd., Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 562/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 92C

evidence IT(TP)A Nos.400 & 562/Bang/2015 Page 29 of 73 afresh and decision in accordance with law, after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Advances written off (Ground No.3) 40. The assessee had debited an amount of Rs.12,24,49,541 as advances written off comprising ... back to the AO to verify the claim of the assessee factually based on evidences and allow the claim accordingly after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Provision for warranty and warranty expenses (Ground No.4) 45. The Assessee had created a provision

Alex Mathew (Prop M/S. Communique Outdoors), Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2310/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Learned Cit(A). Before Learned Cit(A), The Assessee Submitted That He Has Repaid The Creditors In The Subsequent Years & Hence The Addition U/S 41(1) Is Not Warranted. Since The Assessee Did Not 2 Alex Mathew (Prop. M/S. Communique Outdoors) Substantiate The Said Claim, The Learned Cit(A) Confirmed The Addition. Aggrieved, The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Before The Tribunal.

Section 148Section 41(1)

examining it afresh by duly considering the information and explanations that may be filed by the assessee. After affording adequate opportunity of being heard, the AO may 3 Alex Mathew (Prop. M/s. Communique Outdoors) take appropriate decision in accordance with law. I also direct the assessee to fully co-operate