← 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

Aurigo Software Technologies Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 178/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.178/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Aurigo Software Technologies Private Limited, Vs. Ito, Ajmera Aditya Summit, No.3D1, Ground Floor, Ward-1(1)(1), 7Th C Main Road, 3Rd Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 034. Pan : Aacca 5309 D Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

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)

directed to be examined by the TPO/AO afresh in the light of the decision of the tribunal referred to above, after affording opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. IT(TP)A No.178/Bang/2021 Page 19 of 19 21. The TPO/AO is directed to compute the ALP of the international transaction ... rendering of SWD services by the Assessee to AE in the light of the directions given above, after affording Assessee opportunity of being heard. 22. In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed. Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page

M/S. Sri Kumarswamy Minerals Exports Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 686/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Sri Kumaraswamy The Deputy Minerals Exports Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 58, Cunningham Road Income Tax, Cross, Circle – 6[1][2], Bangalore – 560 052. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaqcs4798A Appellant Respondent : Shri V. Chandrashekar, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sankarganesh K, Jcit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 02-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Ex-Parte Order Dated 12.10.2021 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax [Appeals]-12, Bengaluru, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act Dated 12/10/2021, In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Appellant Denies Itself Liable To Be Taxed On A Total Income Of Rs. 103,97,62,214/- As Determined By The Learned Assessing Officer & Confirmed By The Learned

For Respondent: Shri V. Chandrashekar
Section 143Section 154Section 234Section 250

sought adjournment and hence the hearing was fixed on 27.09.2021 and the final hearing was fixed on 11.10.2021. He also submitted that sufficient opportunity of being heard was not provided to assessee. He submitted that under these facts, the order of Ld.CIT(A) should be set aside and the matter ... should be restored back to him for fresh decision after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to assessee. 2.1 The Ld.DR of revenue supported the order of Ld.CIT(A). Page 4 of 4 3. We have considered the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before

M/S Robert Bosch Engineering and Business Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated above and the appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 608/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 608/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Robert Bosch The Deputy Engineering & Business Commissioner Of Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, #123, Industrial Layout, Large Tax Payers Unit, Hosur Road, Koramangala, Circle 1, Bangalore – 560095. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacr7108R Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 445/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Padiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 20-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 By The Ld.Dcit, Ltu, Circle -1, Bangalore U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Act For Assessment Year 2011-12. In Revenue’S Appeal, The Following Grounds Are Raised. “1. The Directions Of Drp Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 80J

directed to compute the ALP of the international transaction in accordance with the directions given above in this order, after affording Assessee opportunity of being heard. Revenue has not been able to place on record any distinguishing feature in respect of these comparables. Therefore respectfully following the above view, above

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Robert Bosch Engineering & Business Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated above and the appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 445/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 608/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Robert Bosch The Deputy Engineering & Business Commissioner Of Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, #123, Industrial Layout, Large Tax Payers Unit, Hosur Road, Koramangala, Circle 1, Bangalore – 560095. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacr7108R Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 445/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Padiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 20-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 By The Ld.Dcit, Ltu, Circle -1, Bangalore U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Act For Assessment Year 2011-12. In Revenue’S Appeal, The Following Grounds Are Raised. “1. The Directions Of Drp Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 80J

directed to compute the ALP of the international transaction in accordance with the directions given above in this order, after affording Assessee opportunity of being heard. Revenue has not been able to place on record any distinguishing feature in respect of these comparables. Therefore respectfully following the above view, above

M/S. Veena Patil Hospitality P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-8, Mumbai

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

ITA 627/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Veena Patil Vs. Pcit-8 Hospitality Pvt Ltd Room No. 611, 701To 705, Neelkanth 6Th Floor, Aayakar Corporate Park, Kirol Bhavan, Mk Road, Road, Vidhyavihar Mumbai – 400 020 West, Mumbai - 400086 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecv4768R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Yogesh Thar.C.A. Ar Respondent By : Shri. Achal Sharma.Dr Date Of Hearing 30.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 14.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-8, Mumbai, Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Yogesh Thar.C.A. ARFor Respondent: Shri. Achal Sharma.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

previous year pursuant to a resolution plan approved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (31 of 2016), after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the jurisdictional Principal Commissioner or Commissioner; (d) to a company, and its subsidiary and the subsidiary of such subsidiary, where,— (i) the Tribunal ... resolution plan approved by the Tribunal under section 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013) after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the jurisdictional Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. As seen from the balance sheet submitted by the assessee, there has been change in shareholding pattern during

Mr. Mayank Jayantilal Desai, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 648/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 648/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Mayank Jayantilal Desai बिधम/ Cit(A), Nfac 20/20, Praveen Terrace, Dr. Delhi-110503. Vs. D.D Sathe Marg, Mumbai- 400004. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaapd9253A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Ms. Bhoomika Patel सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/01/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 27.02.2021 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2010- 11. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “ 1. Natural Justice 1.1 It Is Submitted That, In The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Appellate Order So Framed Be Held As Bad & Illegal, As:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Bhoomika Patel
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

case, and in law, the order is bad in law as: (i) The same is passed without granting proper, sufficient and adequate opportunity of being heard to the Appellant; and (ii) The order is passed much before the date given for submitting the response of the Appellant. 2. REASSESSMENT ... directed to consider the issue afresh and pass an order on the merits of the case after giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard. Therefore, in the said ITA. No.648/Mum/2021 A.Y. 2010-11 circumstances, we are of the view that the order of the CIT(A) is not liable