← 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

Advantage Overseas Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 1(1), Bhopal

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

ITA 922/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 919/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 920/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 922/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2010-11) बिधम/ Advantage Overseas Pvt. Dcit-1(1) Ltd. Bhopal. Vs. 414, A- Wing Express Zone, Off Western Express Highway Malad (E), Mumbai-400097. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaeca8925F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-53, Mumbai Dated 18.02.2022 For Ays. 2014-15 & 2013-14; & Order Dated 11.02.202 For Ay 2010-11. For Ay. 2014-15 (Ita. No. 919/Mum/2022) 2. The Ground No. 1 Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Passing The Impugned Order Without Providing The Assessee Adequate Opportunity Of Being Heard. Having Gone Through The

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

assessee is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) passing the impugned order without providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. Having gone through the ITA No. 919, 920 & 922/Mum/2022 A.Y.2014-15, 2013-14 & 2010-11 Advantage Overseas Pvt. Ltd. impugned order ... before passing of ex-parte impugned order. Therefore, in the light of the grievance of the assessee that it didn’t get proper opportunity of being heard before passing of the impugned order, we are of the opinion that reasonable opportunity ought to have been granted

Advantage Overseas Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

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

ITA 920/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 919/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 920/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 922/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2010-11) बिधम/ Advantage Overseas Pvt. Dcit-1(1) Ltd. Bhopal. Vs. 414, A- Wing Express Zone, Off Western Express Highway Malad (E), Mumbai-400097. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaeca8925F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-53, Mumbai Dated 18.02.2022 For Ays. 2014-15 & 2013-14; & Order Dated 11.02.202 For Ay 2010-11. For Ay. 2014-15 (Ita. No. 919/Mum/2022) 2. The Ground No. 1 Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Passing The Impugned Order Without Providing The Assessee Adequate Opportunity Of Being Heard. Having Gone Through The

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

assessee is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) passing the impugned order without providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. Having gone through the ITA No. 919, 920 & 922/Mum/2022 A.Y.2014-15, 2013-14 & 2010-11 Advantage Overseas Pvt. Ltd. impugned order ... before passing of ex-parte impugned order. Therefore, in the light of the grievance of the assessee that it didn’t get proper opportunity of being heard before passing of the impugned order, we are of the opinion that reasonable opportunity ought to have been granted

Advantage Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

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

ITA 919/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 919/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 920/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 922/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2010-11) बिधम/ Advantage Overseas Pvt. Dcit-1(1) Ltd. Bhopal. Vs. 414, A- Wing Express Zone, Off Western Express Highway Malad (E), Mumbai-400097. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaeca8925F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-53, Mumbai Dated 18.02.2022 For Ays. 2014-15 & 2013-14; & Order Dated 11.02.202 For Ay 2010-11. For Ay. 2014-15 (Ita. No. 919/Mum/2022) 2. The Ground No. 1 Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Passing The Impugned Order Without Providing The Assessee Adequate Opportunity Of Being Heard. Having Gone Through The

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

assessee is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) passing the impugned order without providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. Having gone through the ITA No. 919, 920 & 922/Mum/2022 A.Y.2014-15, 2013-14 & 2010-11 Advantage Overseas Pvt. Ltd. impugned order ... before passing of ex-parte impugned order. Therefore, in the light of the grievance of the assessee that it didn’t get proper opportunity of being heard before passing of the impugned order, we are of the opinion that reasonable opportunity ought to have been granted

Tata International Ltd ( for Erstwhile Bachi Shoes Ltd), Vellore vs. ACIT Circle 1, Vellore

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

ITA 1523/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Tata International Limited V. Acit – Circle – 1 {Erstwhile Bachi Shoes Ltd} No.2, 2Nd Floor No. 147, Sidco Industrial Estate Central Revenue Building Sipcot, Ranipet – 632403 Barracks Cross Street Officers Line, Vellore -632001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Aastha Shah Department By : Shri Rajesh Damor Date Of Hearing : 02.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2022 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman (Am) 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–13, Chennai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 05.03.2018 For The A.Y. 2013-14. 2. Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds In Its Appeal: - “The Appellant Objects To The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)'S Order Dismissing The Appeal Against The Assessment Order, For 2013-14 Aly I) Omitting To Reduce The Adjustments Of Rs. 5,69,560 U/S 145A As Per Letter Dated 25.2.2016;

For Appellant: Ms. Aastha ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor
Section 145ASection 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

Needless to say that the assessee shall cooperate with the assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer shall provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court

DCIT 2 (3), Mumbai vs. Tata Sons Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3850/MUM/2014[1990-91]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 1990-91

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit -2(3) V. M/S. Tata Sons Limited Room No. 552, 5Th Floor Bombay House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 24, Homi Modi Street Mumbai - 400020 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaact4060A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Aarti Vissanji & Ms. Aastha Shah Department By : Shri B.K. Bagchi Date Of Hearing : 02.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2022 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman (Am) 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–6, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 04.02.2014 For The A.Y. 1990-1991. 2. Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds In Its Appeal: - “1. The Order Of The Cit(A) Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case." 2. "On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (Appeal) Has Erred In Directing The A.O To Grant The 2 M/S. Tata Sons Limited Double Taxation Relief To The Assessee At Rs.1.00.49,042/- Without Appreciating That Dit Relief Can Only Be Granted When The Income Taxed By Foreign Authority Is Included In The Total Income Of The Assessee. However, In The Present Case Foreign Income Is Not Included In Total Income 3. For These & Other Grounds That May Be Urged At The Time Of Hearing, The Decision Of The Cit(A) May Be Set Aside & That Of The Ao Be Restored.

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji &For Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi

Needless to say that the assessee shall cooperate with the assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer shall provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court

Sandisk India Device Design Centre Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-6, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 288/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 288/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Sandisk India Device Design Centre Pvt. Ltd., Survey No. 143/1, Amani Bellandur Khane Village, The Joint Prestige Excelsior, Commissioner Of Prestige Tech Park, Income-Tax Marathalli – Sarjapur Outer (Osd), Ring Road, Circle 6 (1)(1), Vs. Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Varthur Hobli, Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aaics9204M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 25-05-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Passed By National E-Assessment Centre, New Delhi On 30.04.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Roti, CA
Section 92C(3)Section 92D

reference to the Learned TPO are bad in law 1.1. The National e-Assessment Centre ('the NeAC'), erred in not providing an opportunity of being heard to SanDisk India Device Design Centre Private Limited (The Appellant' or 'the Company' or 'SanDisk India') before making a reference to the Additional Commissioner ... 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