← 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

M/S Pavan Traders, Ballari vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Ballari

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1609/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Pavan Traders, Dcit, Vs. C/O. M/S Raghavendra Filling Station, Circle – 1, Moka Road, Ballari. Ballari – 583 103. Pan : Abefs 0812 R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. B. S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 260A

that it was the duty and obligation of the ITAT to dispose of the appeal on merits after giving both the parties an opportunity of being heard. The ITAT should have been conscious of the fact that the appellant was not afforded the opportunity to argue the case on merits ... aside and the appeal of the Assessee before CIT(A) be directed to be decided afresh after affording opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. 7. In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purpose. Pronounced in the open court

M/S. Ravi Foundation, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-17, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 884/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Ms. Arati AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar (Sr. AR)
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 263(2)

specific grounds before us, being grounds 8 and 9, to the effect that neither hearing notice was issued to the assessee nor any opportunity of being heard was provided. Thus, we do not find merit in the submissions of learned departmental representative. 13. Since we have held that the impugned

Hubtown Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT (Central)-4, Mumbai

ITA 696/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M.Balaganeshआअसं.696/मुं/2021(िन.व. 2015-16) Hubtown Limited, Cts No. 469A, Hubtown Seasons, 1, R.C. Marg, Chembur (East), Mumbai-400071. Pan: Aaaca6101D ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Pcit (Central), Room No. 663, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. Vijay Mehta "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. Purushottam Tripuri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 01/02/2022 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 26/04/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-4, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Pcit’] Dated 30.03.2021 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Sh. Purushottam Tripuri, CIT-DR
Section 263Section 80I

Officer is 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

Rekha A Barot, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 9 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 473/MUM/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Blerekha A. Barot V. Dcit – 9(2)(1) 1, Ground Floor Room No. 659, 6Th Floor Bharat Corporate Avenue Income Tax Near Versova Police Station Mumbai - 400020 D.N. Nagar, Andheri (W) Mumbai - 400053 Pan: Aenpb5677H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dalpat Shah Department By : Shri T. Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Dalpat ShahFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

file for AO for fresh examination of the matter and decide the same in accordance with law after being providing necessary opportunity of being heard to the assessee. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes.” 4. In the second round of assessment, Assessing Officer considered the detailed submissions

M/S. Legacy Global Projects Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 77/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 154

aside the order passed by ld. CIT(A) and restore all the issues to his file for adjudicating them afresh, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court

M/S Belgacom International Carrier Services Sa, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1) International Taxation, Bangalore

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

ITA 2884/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 2884/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Belgacom The Deputy International Carrier Commissioner Of Services Sa, Income Tax, Rue Lebeau 4, Circle -1(1), 1000 Brussels, International Taxation, Vs. Belgium. Bangalore. Appellant Respondent : Shri V. Sridharan, Senior Assessee By Advocate : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr & Revenue By Smt. Vandana Sagar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 16-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Non Resident Assessee Against Order Dated 30.10.2017 Passed By Dcit (It), Circle -1(1), Bangalore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Being Aggrieved By The Order Of The Learned Dcit, Circle - 1(1), International Taxation, Bengaluru ('A0'), Read With The Order Of The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel ('Drp*), Bengaluru, The Assessee Begs To Prefer The Present Appeal On The Following Grounds: 1. The Learned Ao Erred In Exercising, Jurisdiction U/S 147 Of The Act In The Case Of The Appellant. 2. The Lower Authorities Erred In Holding That A Sum Of Rs. 6,87,13,119/- Received By The Appellant From Its Customer In India Is In The Nature Of 'Royalty' Within The Meaning Of Section 9(1)(Vi) Of The It Act & Accordingly Taxable In India Under The It Act.

For Respondent: Shri V. Sridharan, Senior
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

Rekha Prakash Niichani, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 1734/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2022AY 2010-11
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

applicant checked her e-mail and discovered the aforementioned impugned order. 8 The Appellant prays for a PHYSICAL HEARING and be given an opportunity to be heard in the interest of principle of natural justice as well as the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present appeal. 9 The appellant ... appropriate to remit the issue to the file of learned CIT(A) to consider the issue afresh after giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard. 6. I also note that the assessee’s plea of lack of service of notice has been rejected in a cryptic manner

Naveen Virendrakumar Gupta, Thane vs. ITO (It) 2(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2476/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2012-13
Section 15Section 6Section 9

Learned CIT(A) is directed to examine the issue afresh in light of the submissions now being made by assessee after giving proper opportunity of being heard. 11. In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 22.04.2022. (KAVITHA

M/S Mysore Race Club Limited, Mysore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Mysore

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

ITA 1589/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 40Section 40A(3)

respect of Dope Testing Charges to the file of the AO for examining it afresh after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 10. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 21st

M/S Mysore Race Club Limited, Mysore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1), Mysore

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

ITA 1232/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 40Section 40A(3)

respect of Dope Testing Charges to the file of the AO for examining it afresh after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 10. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 21st

Ansr Global Corporation Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 225/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathyit(Tp)A No.225/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Ansr Global Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Vs. Ground Floor, Block L1, Circle – 1(1)(1), Manyata Embassy Business Park, Bengaluru. Sez, Outer Ring Road, Nagwara, Bengaluru-560 045. Pan : Aaecn 7296 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
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. 23. Corporate Tax grounds: The assessee has raised ground No.22 which reads as follows: 22. Additional Ground: Set off and carry forward

M/S. Sogefi Mnr Filtration India Pvt Lld, Bangaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12(2), Bangaluru

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

ITA 2076/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

proper to direct the AO to examine the issue afresh in the light of the aforesaid decision after affording the Assessee opportunity of being heard. We therefore allow these appeals for statistical purpose. ITA Nos.2074 to 2076/Bang/2018 Page 9 of 9 18. In the result, all the appeals

M/S. Sogefi Mnr Filtration India Pvt Ltd, Bangaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2075/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

proper to direct the AO to examine the issue afresh in the light of the aforesaid decision after affording the Assessee opportunity of being heard. We therefore allow these appeals for statistical purpose. ITA Nos.2074 to 2076/Bang/2018 Page 9 of 9 18. In the result, all the appeals

M/S. Sogefi Mnr Filtration India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2074/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

proper to direct the AO to examine the issue afresh in the light of the aforesaid decision after affording the Assessee opportunity of being heard. We therefore allow these appeals for statistical purpose. ITA Nos.2074 to 2076/Bang/2018 Page 9 of 9 18. In the result, all the appeals

Ahalya Trading Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 12 (1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 274/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman ()

interest of substantial justice, we restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to give another opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after hearing the assessee, to decide the appeal on merit. The assessee is directed to prosecute its appeal before

Giriganga Investments Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 5 (3), Mumbai

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

ITA 7127/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Him. The Cit(Appeals) Has Failed To Appreciate That Addition On A New Issue Of Long Term Capital Gain

Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 250(6)

deem this aspect also fit to be remitted to the file of learned CIT(A). Learned CIT(A) is directed to give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass a speaking order in this regard. Our above order applies mutatis mutandis

Akash Education & Development Trust, Bengaluru vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-2, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 737/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 269SSection 271DSection 271D(2)Section 273B

this was in contravention of the provisions of s. 27. 269SS of the IT Act and after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard, he came to a conclusion that the assessee was liable to be penalized under s. 27ID of the Act. Accordingly, he imposed a penalty

M/S. Futuron Systems Private Limited C/O Sri. Vinod Sunder Raman, Liquidator, Bangaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2526/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessmentyear:2016-17

For Appellant: Sri Chavali Narayan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sankar Ganesh D., D.R
Section 133(6)Section 68

this issue and restore the same to the file of the A.O. for examining it afresh. After affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the Futuron systems Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 5 of 5 assessee, the A.O. may take appropriate decision in accordance with law. 10. In the result

Sri T C Srinivasa, Tumkur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Tumkur

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

ITA 131/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Sri. Kirankumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman Addl CIT
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 250Section 40Section 40A(3)

directed to look at the facts afresh in the light of the affidavit filed by the assessee after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in court on 18th April, 2022 (BEENA

Bipin Amratlal Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT 18 (1) Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 5959/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(14)Section 251

considered opinion that the matter needs to be remitted to the file of ld.CIT(A) to give the assessee, an opportunity of being heard and thereafter, decide the appeal as per law by a speaking order. Ld. Counsel of the assessee agreed with the above proposition and undertook to cooperate