← 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

Kaushal Premchand Luhadiya, Mumbai vs. ITO 33(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1308/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1308/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) Kaushal Premchand बिधम/ Ito-33(2)(2) Luhadiya Room No.846, 8Th Floor, Vs. 2201, A-Wing, Mit- Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To Niketan Tower, 90Ft Road, C-43, G-Block, Bandra Near Sanskruti Building, Kurla Complex, Bandra Thakur Complex, Kandivali East, Mumbai-400051. East, Mumbai-400101. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aawpl3781H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hari S. Raheja Revenue By: Shri Vijay Kumar Soni (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-45, Mumbai Dated 30.12.2019 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Drew Our Attention To The Impugned Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Which Is An Ex-Parte Order. Further, He Also Brought To Our Notice That The Ao Has Also Passed An Ex-Parte Order U/S 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter (‘The Act’)]. According To The Ld. Ar The Ex-Parte Orders Were Passed Because The Assessee Had Entrusted His Case To Shri Manoj Doshi Itp Who Mislead Him By Stating That He Is Appearing Before The Ao/Cit(A). However, Only Once The Assessee Received The Impugned Order, He Understood That The Itp Did Not Appear Before Ld Cit(A)

For Appellant: Shri Hari S. RahejaFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Soni (Sr. AR)
Section 144

authority, that reads thus : "We will straightway agree with the assessee's submission that the ITO had not given to the assessee proper opportunity of being heard." 3 A.Y. 2011-12 Kaushal Premchand Luhadiya That the assessee could have placed evidence before the first appellate authority or before the Tribunal ... aside the order of assessment and remand the matter to the assessing authority for fresh assessment after giving to the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard. 2. Two questions were placed before the High Court, of which the second question is not pressed. The first question reads thus

Galax E Solutions India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 389/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathyit(Tp)A No.389/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Galax E Solutions India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Unit No.4, 8Th Floor, Innovator Block, Itpl, Circle -3(1)(1), Bangalore, Whitefield Road, Bangalore 560 066. Pan : Aabcg 9007 F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. C. J. Brito, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumeer Singh Meena, Cit, Dr. Date Of Hearing : 23.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.05.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.5.2021 Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Bangalore, (Hereinafter Referred To As The Assessing Officer, “Ao” In Short) Passed U/S.143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) In Relation To Ay 2016-2017. 2. The First Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is With Regard To The Correctness Of Determination Of Arm’S Length Price In Respect Of An International Transaction U/S.92 Of The Act. The Assessee In Engaged In The Business Of Provision Of Software Development Services (Swd Services), To It’S Wholly Owned Subsidiary Company In Usa. In Terms Of The Provisions

For Appellant: Shri. C. J. Brito, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Singh Meena, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

international transaction of rendering of SWD services by the Assessee to AE in the light of the directions given above, after affording Assessee opportunity of being heard. 18. The next issue to be dealt with in this appeal is Ground No.5 to 8 of the concise grounds of appeal with ... international transaction at all in this regard and consequently there cannot be any determination of ALP. The TPO/AO will afford opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before deciding the issue. 25. In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed. Pronounced in the open court