← 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

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S U.L. India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 378/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

M/S Transcon Skycity Pvt Ltd. (Formerly Samta Builders Pvt Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4860/MUM/2019[20115-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 4860/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) बिधम/ M/S. Transcon Skycity Pvt. Dcit-Cc-4(2) Ltd. Room No.1918, Air India Vs. (Formerly Samta Builders Building, Nariman Point, Pvt. Ltd.) Mumbai-400021. 622-B/1, Goshala Compound, Lbs Marg, Mulund(W), Mumbai- 400080. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccs6362G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By: Shri B. K. Bagchi सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.05.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-52, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Law & In Facts In Not Holding That The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act Passed By The Ao Is Bad In Law, Illegal & Null & Void.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Bagchi
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

this issue and restore the issue before the AO to decide the matter of controversy afresh by giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with law. Accordingly, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee against the revenue. 6. In the result, the appeal filed

Mr Ketan Gokuldas Badiani, Mumbai vs. ITO 33(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2611/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2611/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Mr. Ketan Gokuldas Badiani बिधम/ Ito-33(2)(2) F-221 Raj Arcade Ahaveer 609, C-12, Pratyaksh Kar Vs. Nagar Dhanukar Wadi Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Kandiwali West, Mumbai- Complex, Bandra (E), 400067. Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajapb1472C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rajendra Thakkar (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Gurbinder Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 21.01.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -45, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. A) The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & Fact Son Records In Confirming An Addition Of 15,61,217 By Arbitrarily Estimating The Additional Gross Profit @ 5% Of Turnover As Against 4.38% Already Offered To Tax By The Appellant. A.Y. 2011-12 B) The Appellant Submit That It Have Been Engaged In Trading Of The Leather Articles, Transported In Hand Carts, Items Of Purchases Are Identifiable Against The Sales.

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Thakkar (AR)For Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 148

such bogus purchases at the same rate as that of the other genuine purchases. Needless to add the assessee should be granted adequate opportunity of being heard.” 4. Since the issue has already been adjudicated while deciding the ITA. No.3094/Mum/2019 for the A.Y.2011-12 decided vide order dated 01.01.2021, therefore

Shri. Mohan Kashiram Kadam, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 28(2)(2), Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 658/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 658/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Mohan Kashiram Kadam बिधम/ Ito-28(2)(2) 418/419, The Great Eastern Room No. 307, Tower No.6, Vs. Galleria, Sector-4, Nerul, Vashi Station Complex, Navi Mumbai-400706. Vashi, Navi Mumbai- 4000703. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aanpk4585D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Aditya Ramchandran Revenue By: Ms. Neha Thakur (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 31/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 06.11.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, 1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming Action Of A.O. Of Adding Short Term Capital Gain U/S 50 Arising Out Of Sale Of Depreciable Asset To The Tune Of Rs. 25,13,544/- By Denying The Exemption U/S 54F In

For Appellant: Shri Aditya RamchandranFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Thakur (Sr. AR)
Section 50Section 54F

assessee has argued that the CIT(A) has decided the ITA. No.658/Mum/2020 A.Y. 2012-13 matter of controversy without giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, therefore, the finding is not justifiable, hence, is liable to be set aside. However, on the other hand, the Ld. Representative ... this issue and restore the issue before the CIT(A) to decide the matter of controversy afresh on merits by giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with law. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes. 4. In the result

Ruttonsha International Rectifier Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO -13(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6035/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 6035/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ruttonsha International बिधम/ Ito-13(3)(2) Room No.227, 2Nd Floor, Rectifier Ltd Vs. 139/141, B- Wing, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Solaris Building No.1, Saki Road, Mumbai-400020. Vihar Road, Powai, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400072. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr2816E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Homiyar Madan Revenue By: Shri Abdul Hakeem सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/11/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 24.06.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. The Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Order Of The Assessing Officer Wherein The Assessing Officer Added Back Expenditure Failing To Appreciate That Each Item Was Below The Value Or Rs.5,000/- & Was In The Nature Of Repair & Replacement Expenditure.

For Appellant: Shri Homiyar MadanFor Respondent: Shri Abdul Hakeem
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

with law. Accordingly, we restore the issue before the AO to examine the expenses in details and to decide afresh by giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with law. Needless to say that if the expenses would be treated as capital expenses then the claim ... this issue and restore the issue before the AO to decide the matter of controversy afresh by giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with law. ISSUE NO.3 6. The issue no.3 is in connection with the non-deduction of TDS on the payment made

Sami-Sabinsa Group Limited (Formerly Sami Labs Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for both the years stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3353/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A Nos. 2764/Bang/2017 & 3353/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Sami –Sabinsa Group Ltd. (Formerly The Deputy Sami Labs Ltd.), Commissioner Of No. 19/1 & 19/2, I Main, Income Tax, Ii Phase, Circle 6 (1)(1), Peenya Industrial Area, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 058. Pan: Aadcs2549E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Bhavya Bansal, Ca : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 15-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Undated For A.Y. 2013-14 & 23.10.2018 For A.Y. 2014-15 Passed By Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore. The Above Appeals Are Disposed Of By Way Of A Common Order As Common Issues Arises On Identical Facts. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Are Reproducing The Grounds Raised By Assessee For Assessment Year 2013-14. Page 2 Of 7 It(Tp)A Nos. 2764/Bang/2017 & 3353/Bang/2018

For Appellant: Ms. Bhavya Bansal, CA
Section 92BSection 92C

directions hereinabove. These grounds may be considered by the Ld.AO/TPO afresh in the remand proceedings. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard needs to be granted to assessee. Accordingly, grounds raised by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, appeals filed by assessee