← 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

Kakkabe vs. S Bank Limited, Kodugu

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

ITA 490/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Kakkabe Vssn Bank The Principal Ltd., Commissioner Of Main Road, Kakkabe, Income-Tax, Kodagu – 571 212. Mysore. Pan: Aaabk0958P Vs. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit I Date Of Hearing : 31-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Order Dated 06.03.2020 Passed By Ld.Pr.Cit, Mysore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Order As Passed By The Hon'Ble Pr.Cit U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Is Arbitrary, Unjust & Illegal Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant Case. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & On Law, The Hon'Ble Pr.Cit Has Assumed The Jurisdiction U/S 263 Under Incorrect Application Of Law As Twin Condition Of "Erroneous Order & Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue" As Enunciated U/S 263 Were Not Satisfied Simultaneously & Therefore Assumption Of Jurisdiction U/S 263 & Impugned Order Passed Thereunder Liable To Be Quashed As Void-Ab-Initio. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances & Law, The Original Order Passed By The Learned Ao Was After Proper Application Of Mind & Proper Appreciations Of Law & The Intervention Caused By The Hon'Ble Pr. Cit By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 263 Has No Sanction Of Settled

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT I
Section 143(3)Section 260Section 263Section 80P(1)Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

requisite details in support of the claim which would be verified by the Ld.AO in accordance with law. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard to be granted to assessee in accordance with law. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

M/S Tata Elxsi Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-7, Bangalore

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

ITA 907/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Tata Elxsi Ltd., The Assistant Itpl Road, Commissioner Of Hoody, Income Tax, Whitefield Road, Ao As Special Range 7, Bangalore – 560 048. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaact7872Q Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Assessee By Khincha, Ca : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 21-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.03.2019 By Ld.Cit(A)-7, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. General Ground 1.1 The Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax- Circle 7(1)(1) (`A0'), Bangalore Has Erred In Passing The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (`The Act') In The Manner Passed By Him & The Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Appeals)-7 (`Cit(A)') Has Erred In Partly Confirming The Said Assessment Order. The Said Order To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Grounds Relating To Disallowance Of Deduction Under Section 80Jjaa Of The Act 2.1. The Learned Ao Has Erred In Disallowing Deduction Under Section 80Jjaa Amounting To Rs. 13,14,23,244/-

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 28Section 37Section 80J

documents Page 13 of 14 in light of the provisions applicable during the relevant period under the act. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard shall be granted to assessee in accordance with law Filed by assessee, accordance with law. 6.4. Accordingly, the issue is remanded to Ld.AO

Smt. Swetha Ranga Swamy Shetty, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 6(3)(2), Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1528/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Swetha Ranga Swamy Shetty Friends Paradise Flat No.004 9Th Cross 13Th Main, E Block Ito Ward 6(3)(2) Vs. Bengaluru 560 092 Bengaluru Pan No : Bdhps5562E Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.R. Respondent By : Shri Sankarganesh K., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 05.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2022 O R D E R Per Beena Pillai: Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 15/04/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-6, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2014-15. At The Outset The Ld.Ar Submitted That Assess Did Not Receive Did Not Receive Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act & Therefore Could Not Attend The Assessment Proceedings. It Is Submitted That Assessment Order Passed By The Ld.Ao Was Under Section 144 Of The Act. It Is Smt. Swetha Ranga Swamy Shetty, Bangalore

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankarganesh K., D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

opinion that the appeal may be remanded to the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard may be granted to assessee. Delay if any in filing appeal by the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A) stands condoned. Assessee or her representative

M/S Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2 Ltpu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for 37

ITA 3373/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.3373/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Te Park, 22B, Doddenakundi Corporation, 2Nd Circle - 2, Large Taxpayer Unit, Phase, Industrial Area, Whitefield Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 7374 C Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sriram Seshadri, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C

consideration to the AO/TPO to carry out the exercise of determination of ALP in the licence manufacturing segment denovo. The AO/TPO will afford opportunity of being heard to the assessee in the set aside proceedings. The relevant grounds of appeal are accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purpose. 14. Grounds ... evidence filed before us and these submissions and additional evidence go to the root of the matter. The AO and TPO will afford opportunity of being heard to the assessee in the set aside proceedings. 23. The assessee has raised corporate tax issues apart from Transfer Pricing Issues, which

Skil Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Range Central Circle 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5347/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 5347/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) बिधम/ Skill Infrastructure Ltd. Dcit, Range Central Circle- 209, Skill House, Bank 6(3) Vs. Room No. 1905, 19Th Floor, Street Cross Lane, Fort, Mumbai-400023. Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 5656/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Dcit, Range Central Circle- बिधम/ Skill Infrastructure Ltd. 6(3) 209, Skill House, Bank Street Vs. Room No.1905, 19Th Floor, Cross Lane, Fort, Mumbai- Air India Building, Nariman 400023. Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahca5892 (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Jayant Jhaveri (Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 14.06.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -54, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2016-17. Ita. No.5347/Mum/2019

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Jhaveri (DR)
Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

matter of controversy afresh in view of the decision in the case of Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. (Supra). Needless to say that an opportunity of being heard is liable to be given to the assessee in accordance with law. ITA. NO.5656/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2016-17 6. The revenue has filed

M/S Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 655/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

care of the grievances projected by the assessee in ground Nos. 5 & 6 and additional grounds No.6 (d), 26 & 27.The TPO will afford opportunity of being heard to the assessee before deciding the issue.” 12. As the parties prayed for similar direction in the present AY also, respectfully following ... transaction of rendering of certification services by the Assessee to its AE to the TPO/AO for determination of ALP, after affording the Assessee opportunity of being heard and in the light of the directions given by the Tribunal in Assessment Year 2009-10. The relevant grounds of appeal in this

Ul India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 574/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

care of the grievances projected by the assessee in ground Nos. 5 & 6 and additional grounds No.6 (d), 26 & 27.The TPO will afford opportunity of being heard to the assessee before deciding the issue.” 12. As the parties prayed for similar direction in the present AY also, respectfully following ... transaction of rendering of certification services by the Assessee to its AE to the TPO/AO for determination of ALP, after affording the Assessee opportunity of being heard and in the light of the directions given by the Tribunal in Assessment Year 2009-10. The relevant grounds of appeal in this