← 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

Tanglin Developments Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 146/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Jairam Raipura, CIT(DR OSD)
Section 43A

directed to redo the assessment accordingly in the light of findings on the above mentioned issues and by allowing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and in accordance with law" 16. ThePr.CIThas given directions in the context of "notional liability” and also in the context of "allowing expenditure without

Tanglin Developments Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 145/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Jairam Raipura, CIT(DR OSD)
Section 43A

directed to redo the assessment accordingly in the light of findings on the above mentioned issues and by allowing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and in accordance with law" 16. ThePr.CIThas given directions in the context of "notional liability” and also in the context of "allowing expenditure without

Tanglin Developments Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 144/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Jairam Raipura, CIT(DR OSD)
Section 43A

directed to redo the assessment accordingly in the light of findings on the above mentioned issues and by allowing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and in accordance with law" 16. ThePr.CIThas given directions in the context of "notional liability” and also in the context of "allowing expenditure without

Tanglin Developments Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 143/BANG/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Jairam Raipura, CIT(DR OSD)
Section 43A

directed to redo the assessment accordingly in the light of findings on the above mentioned issues and by allowing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and in accordance with law" 16. ThePr.CIThas given directions in the context of "notional liability” and also in the context of "allowing expenditure without

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Timken Engineering & Research India Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal and cross objection filed by the assessee and the appeal of the revenue are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 694/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year:2011-12

For Appellant: Sri Aliasghar Rampurawala, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Pradeep Kumar, D.R

plea of assessee and shall after obtaining report from the TPO in this regard, decide the issue in accordance with law. Reasonable opportunity of being heard shall be afforded to the assessee while deciding the issue. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are thus, allowed. In respect

M/S Timken Engineering and Research India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal and cross objection filed by the assessee and the appeal of the revenue are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 517/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year:2011-12

For Appellant: Sri Aliasghar Rampurawala, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Pradeep Kumar, D.R

plea of assessee and shall after obtaining report from the TPO in this regard, decide the issue in accordance with law. Reasonable opportunity of being heard shall be afforded to the assessee while deciding the issue. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are thus, allowed. In respect

Sri Rajib Chowdhury, Ben vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-7, Bengaluru

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

ITA 85/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Rajib Chowdhury, Prop. M/S. Bright Petroleum, The Income Tax Officer, No. 340, 10Th B Main, Ward 8 (3), 1St Cross, 4Th Block, Bangalore. Basaveswaranagar, Vs. Bangalore – 560079. Pan: Ablpc6333L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri B. Srinivasa, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sankarganesh K, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 23-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-01-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Order Dated 11.10.2017 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-7, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That On The Facts Of The Case, The Learned Income Tax Officer Is Not Right In Disallowing The Interest Paid On Loan. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of Case, The Learned Commissioner Appeal'S Should Have Observed That The Assessing Officer Has Not Recorded Satisfaction With Regard To Genuineness Of The Transactions Entered By The Appellant & Not Provided An Opportunity. 3. That The Learned Commissioner Appeal'S Has Not Verified That Bank Statement Disbursement Of Loan Amount. 4. That The Learned Commissioner Appeal'S Has Erred Both On The Facts & In Law. 5. That The Learned Commissioner Of Appeal Should Have Examined The Utilization Of Loan Amount After Loan

For Appellant: Shri B. Srinivasa, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sankarganesh K, JCIT (DR)

loan amount. The Ld.CIT(A) is directed to pass detailed order on merits in accordance with law. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to assessee. Accordingly, the grounds raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, the appeal filed by assessee

Sri K. Harsha Reddy, Davanagere vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward - 1(2), Davanagere

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 2055/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate
Section 133ASection 148Section 234

Ld.CIT(A) is directed to pass a detailed order on merits after considering the details filed by assessee. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard may be granted to assessee in accordance with law. Accordingly, this ground raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. 6. Ground No.5 ... Ld.CIT(A) is directed to pass a detailed order on merits after considering the details filed by assessee. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard may be granted to assessee in accordance with law. Page 10 of 11 Accordingly, this ground raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical

Global E Business Operations Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 418/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 143(3)

Assessing Officer/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 such fresh proceedings. Accordingly, this ground raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose.' IT(TP)A No.418 & 250/Bang/2016 Page ... Assessing Officer/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 such fresh proceedings.” 12. In view of the above orders of the Tribunal, we are inclined to remit this issue to the AO/TPO

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Global E- Business Operations Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 250/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 143(3)

Assessing Officer/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 such fresh proceedings. Accordingly, this ground raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose.' IT(TP)A No.418 & 250/Bang/2016 Page ... Assessing Officer/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 such fresh proceedings.” 12. In view of the above orders of the Tribunal, we are inclined to remit this issue to the AO/TPO

Arun Kapoor, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 36(5), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 731/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 274Section 4Section 68Section 80U

grossly erred both in law and on facts in disposing the appeal without providing to the assessee, a fair, proper and meaningful opportunity of being heard, violating the principles of natural justice and thus such an order is vitiated both on fact and in law. 5. The order passed

Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-Circle-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 942/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

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 ... going into the merits of the case. 34. Upon receipt of the directions, the AO shall complete the assessment without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Where assessment order is passed post DRP directions (where DRP has the power of enhancement), revisionary powers cannot be exercised

Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT, Circle-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 941/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

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 ... going into the merits of the case. 34. Upon receipt of the directions, the AO shall complete the assessment without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Where assessment order is passed post DRP directions (where DRP has the power of enhancement), revisionary powers cannot be exercised

Madhav Raksha Sankalpa, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 299/MUM/2021[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 299/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Madhavi Raksha Sankalpa बिधम/ Cit(Exemptions) 3Rd Floor, Nirmal Niketan 2, Room No.617, 6Th Floor, Vs. Dr. Bhajekar Street, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Khetwadi Main Road, Parel, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400004. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatm7188H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nishit Gandhi Revenue By: Shri A. K. Kardam (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/01/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.08.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions)- Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(Exemptions)”] In Which The Application U/S 12Aa(1)(B)(Ii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Has Been Ordered To Be Dismissed. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. Natural Justice 1.1 The Learned Commissioner Of Income - Tax (Exemption), Mumbai (“Ld. Cit (E) Erred In Rejecting The Application For Registration Under Section 12A Of The Appellant Ex - Parte.

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Kardam (DR)
Section 12A

parte. ITA. No.299/Mum/2021 A.Y. 2020-21 1.2 While doing so. the Ld. CIT (E) erred in: (i) Not giving fair, reasonable and proper opportunity of being heard to the Appellant; and (ii) Not appreciating that the Appellant was prevented by reasons beyond its control for not being able to attend ... question and restore the matter of controversy before the CIT(Exemptions), Mumbai to decide the matter of controversy afresh by giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with law. Accordingly, the present appeal is hereby allowed for statistical purposes. 4. In the result, the appeal filed

Parasmal Champalal Bamboli, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -27, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 580/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Parasmal Champalal Bamboli, Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-27 Room No. 401, 4Th Floor, Tower No. C/O Sarvodaya Vastra Bhandar, Ramgiri Building, Near Natraj Vs. 6, Vashi Railway Station, Cinema Chembur, Commercial Complex, Vashi, Mumbai-400071. Navi Mumbai-400703. Pan No. Aafpb 2058 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ajay Singh, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Jacinta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/01/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/01/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Jacinta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

prejudicial to the interest of revenue within the meaning of section 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961. You are therefore, allowed an opportunity of being heard and show-cause as to why an order enhancing or modifying the assessment or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment within

M/S Volvo India Pvt. Ltd., Hosakote vs. CIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 687/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Pavan Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

Page 6 of 30 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 of the case justify, including an order

Luxottica India Eyewear Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 15(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 8259/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Saktwit Dey & Sh. N. K. Billaiya

Section 143Section 92B

comparables which are akin to the business profile of the assessee and decide the issue afresh after affording a reasonable and fair opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 20. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed with the above directions. 21. Decision announced

Priya Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 25, New Delhi

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

ITA 7303/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Parikshit Singh, Sr.D.R
Section 133Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

appreciate that assessment order passed by the Ld AO is against the principles of natural justice and has been passed without reasonable opportunity of being heard. 12 ITA.No.7303/Del./2017 M/s. Priya Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions ... fact and law. Needless to say the 21 ITA.No.7303/Del./2017 M/s. Priya Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. A.O. shall give due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds challenging the addition on merit is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result

Ramjilal G Johar, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 409/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ramjilal G. Johar Ito 19(3)(1) C/O M/S Arvind G. Shah Vs. Matru Mandir, 407 Lotus House, 33A Aayakar Karyalaya, New Marine Lines Nana Chowk, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 007

For Appellant: Shri Mayur A. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mahendra Ahuja. Sr. D.R
Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

conviction that the very purpose of 5 ITA No.409/Mum/2020 A.Y. 2010-11 Ramjilal G. Johar VS. ITO 19(3)(1) affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per the mandate of Sec. 274(1) would not only be frustrated but would be rendered redundant

Saroj Malik, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-46(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 846/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Umang Takyar, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)

Assessee did not bother itself to appear on each and every date of hearing and co-ordinate with appellate proceedings even after affording opportunity of being heard. Although the instant appeal of the Assessee is liable to be dismissed in order to give effect to the principle that law does ... instant case to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for decision afresh on merits, suffice to say by affording proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee/Appellant, in order to follow the principle of natural justice. We also consider it appropriate to direct the Assessee/Appellant to extend