“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

Smt. Aruna Gulabchandra Gupta, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT, Mumbai-17, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 114/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Blesmt Aruna Gulab Chandra Gupta V. Pr.Cit – Mumbai – 17 3Rd Floor, Rustom Building 29 Room No. 120, 1St Floor Veer Nariman Road, Fort Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43 Mumbai - 400001 G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Aelpg7315P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jotwani Department By : Ms. Sailaja Rai

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Ms. Sailaja Rai

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

directed the Assessing Officer to frame the assessment denovo by following the observations in 263 order and after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. Aggrieved assessee is in appeal before us by raising following grounds in her appeal: - “On the facts and in the circumstances

R Govinde Gowda, Mandya vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-3, Bangalore

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

ITA 366/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

interests of revenue. Accordingly, he initiated revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act on both the issues referred above. After affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the Ld. Principal CIT held that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue

Siddappa B T, Mandya vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-3, Bangalore

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

ITA 363/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

Ingersoll Rand Technologies and Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 89/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri , CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 92C

before the AO and is directed to co-operate with the AO in the proceedings. It is needless to say that the reasonable opportunity of being heard should be given to the assessee. The grounds raised are allowed in favour of the assessee for statistical purposes. 19. In the result

Abhyudaya Coop Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 623/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Bleabhyudaya Co-Op Bank Limited V. Pr.Cit -1 Ground Floor, K.K. Tower 3Rd Floor, Room No. 330 Abhudaya Bank Lane Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Off. G.D. Ambedkar Marg Mumbai - 400020 Parel Village, Mumbai – 400012 Pan: Aaaaa0300L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Keshav Bhujale Department By : Ms. Sailaja Rai

For Appellant: Shri Keshav BhujaleFor Respondent: Ms. Sailaja Rai

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)

assessee. Once again Ld. Pr.CIT raised the same issue and directs the Assessing Officer to verify the same once again after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Ld. Pr.CIT cannot impose his views on the issue which was verified twice and respective Assessing Officer’s has taken

M.S South Ocean Transport Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 11 (2)(3), Mumbai

In the result assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7864/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: The Itat.

Section 68

along with the submissions in this regard and thereafter pass an order as per law. Needless to add assessee should be granted adequate opportunity of being heard. Both the parties agreed to the above. 7. In the result assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced

DCIT 6 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Kilitch Healthcare India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross objection is held to be infructuous

ITA 7061/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viia)Section 56(2)(viib)

action of the Assessing Officer of disallowing certain sums on the direction of the Additional Commission of Income Tax without providing an opportunity of being heard to the cross objection as mandated by the provisions of section 144A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in spite of such directions being ... raised by the assessee relates to A.O/s action in making certain disallowance on the directions of the Additional CIT U/S. 144A, without providing opportunity of being heard. The A.O. mentioned in the order that disallowance had been made, considering the directions of the Addl.CIT., Range-6(3), Mumbai, however

Pramod Kumar Shantilal, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 623/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K, D.R

Section 143(1)

restore this issue to the file of the A.O. for examining the claim of the assessee. After affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the A.O. may take appropriate decision in accordance with law. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed

Income Tax Officer Ward-7(2)(1), Bangalore vs. Sri H N Purushotham, Bangalore

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

ITA 420/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessmentyear:2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.RFor Respondent: N O N E

Section 139(4)Section 144ASection 68

passed by Ld. CIT(A) and restore the same to the file of the A.O. for examining the issue afresh, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

M/S Quest Global Engineering Services Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 978/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.978/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep/Smt. Girija G.P., A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik

plus basis. We therefore direct Ld. TPO to compute the ALP in accordance with the directions contained in this order after affording assessee opportunity of being heard.” Following the same, we direct the AO/TPO not to make negative working capital adjustment in the hands of the assessee. 5. We shall

Shailesh J Jogavi, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 5 (3), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6558/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Shailesh J. Jogani, Dcit, Central Circle-5(3), Dw-3010, Room No.1906, 19Th Floor, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Air India Building, Bandra (East), Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai Pan: Aebpj3548M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. S. Jogani Exports Pvt. Dcit, Central Circle-5(3), Ltd., Room No.1906, 19Th Floor, Dw-3010, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Vs. Air India Building, Bandra Kurla Complex, Nariman Point, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 051 Pan: Aalcs4862J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Amol B. Kirtane, D.R

Section 129Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

file is remitted back to the AO to decide afresh after taking into consideration the retraction statement made by the assessee after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 22.03.2022. (GAGAN

DCIT 2(2), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

ITA 4951/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. State Bank Of India, Dcit, Financial Reporting & Circle -2(2), Taxation Dept., Mumbai 3Rd Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Office Of The Dcit-2(2), M/S. State Bank Of India, R.No.545, Central Office, Aayakar Bhavan, Accounts & Compliance M.K. Road, Dept., Vs. 14Th Floor, Mumbai- 400 020 Madam Cama Rd., Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan, D.R

Section 14Section 14ASection 36Section 41(4)

which is on identical issue and have been decided by remitting the case back to the AO to decide afresh after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee by returning the following findings: “16.1. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. All the facts ... no.371/Mum./2014 restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer and directed him to decide the controversy afresh by Giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with law by following similar guidelines as given by the Tribunal in the aforesaid misc. application. Consistent with

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

ITA 3685/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2022AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan, D.R

Section 14Section 14ASection 36Section 41(4)

M/S Brady Company India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(4), Bangalore

In the result, ground 26 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 790/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.103/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 It(Tp)A No.790/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 M/S.Brady Company India Private The Income Tax Officer Limited, No.26, Survey No.41 Ward 1(1)(4) V. Bengaluru. Konappana Agrahara Village Begur, Hobli, Electronci City, Phase-Ii, Bengaluru – 560 100. Pan : Aaccb8163A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2022 Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals Are At The Instance Of The Assessee. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2014-2015. 2. The Reason For Filing Two Appeals For Assessment Year 2014-2015 Is That Pursuant To The Dispute Resolution Panel’S (Drp) Directions (Directions Dated 28.09.2008), The A.O. Passed Final Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act Dated 15.11.2018. In The Said Assessment Order, The Aggregate Transfer Pricing Adjustment Was Determined At Rs.14,43,51,081. An Appeal Has Been Filed Before The Tribunal Against The Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act (Appeal No.It(Tp)A No.103/Bang/2019). Subsequently, On Application By The Assessee, The Drp Passed Rectification Order Dated

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 154

AO/TPO is directed to obtain the same directly from the concerned parties and to decide this issue afresh after giving assessee an opportunity of being heard." (Emphasis Supplied) 35 Accordingly, we direct the TPO to exercise powers under section 133(6) of the Act to call for information on capacity ... management fees be remanded to the AO / TPO for fresh determination. The AO / TPO shall afford the assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard before a decision is taken in this matter. It is ordered accordingly. 5.5 In the result, grounds 14 to 22 are allowed for statistical purposes. ITES Segment

M/S Brady Company India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(4), Bangalore

In the result, ground 26 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 103/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 154

M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1310/BANG/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1309 & 1310/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Innovator, No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Post, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 3824 F Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 17.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. G. S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

recorded before the matter was referred to the TPO. 3.2 The order is further bad in law as the appellant was denied of opportunity of being heard before reference to the TPO which is against the principles of natural justice. 4. The authorities below are not justified in holding that ... under section 92CA of the Act, has not complied with the mandatory conditions laid down in the said section and has not afforded opportunity of being heard to the assessee before making a reference to the TPO. Though the learned Counsel for the assessee did not spell

M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1309/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2022AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri. G. S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

M/S Talisma Corporation Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2499/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore21 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2499/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Talisma Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Olympia The Deputy Building, Commissioner Of Bagmane Tech Park, Income Tax, C V Raman Nagar, Circle 7 (1)(1), Byrasandra Post, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 093. Pan: Aabct1052F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri T. Suryanarayan, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 21-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 26.09.2017 For A.Y. 2013-14 By Ld.Dcit, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law. Talisma Corporation Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "Appellant"), Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Appeal Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As The Learned A01 Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act. 1961 (The Act") On The Following Grounds: That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law: 1. The Learned Ao/ Transfer Pricing Officer (.Tpo') Erred. In Law & In Facts. In Making An Addition Of Inr 1,44.13,409

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 271(1)(c)

accordance with various principles laid down by this Tribunal as well as various High Courts on this issue. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard is to be granted to assessee. Accordingly, ground nos. 1 to 9 stands allowed for statistical purposes. 8. The Ld. Counsel submitted that ... Ld.AO/TPO for deciding it in conformity with the above referred judgment. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed a reasonable opportunity of being heard in accordance with law.” 36. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that deferred receivables would constitute an independent international transaction and the same

Toyota Industries Engine India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 355/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.355, 2127/Bang/2016 Assessment Years : 2011-12, 2012-13 It(Tp)A No. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year M/S. Toyota Industries Engine India Dcit, 355/Bang/2016 Private Limited, Circle – 4(1)(1), (Formerly Known As Kirloskar Toyota Bengaluru. Textile Machinery Private Limited), Plot No.9, Phase – 2, Jigani Industrial Area, Jigani, Bengaluru-560 105. Pan : Aaack 7425 Q -Do- Dcit, 2127/Bang/2016 Circle – 7(1)(1), Bengaluru.

For Appellant: Shri. Ajit Tolani/Darpan Kirpalani, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Roumuan Paite, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115JSection 143(3)

that the correct margin of this company is 7.27% as against 14.02% taken by the TPO should also be examined afresh, after due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 18. With regard to exclusion of Laxmi Machine Works Ltd., the comparability of this company though raised as a ground ... apart from functional comparability of this company. The AO/TPO is directed to compute the ALP of the international transactions after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with the directions contained in this order. 19. As far as the corporate tax issues are concerned, the same

M/S.Toyota Industries Engine India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2127/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. Ajit Tolani/Darpan Kirpalani, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Roumuan Paite, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115JSection 143(3)