← 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

Sanjeev Dhawan, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 63(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2690/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sanjeev Dhawan Vs Income-Tax Officer, 10103/3, Pul Bangash, Azad Market, Ward 63(1), New Delhi. Delhi-110006 Pan- Aagpd4848M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Rajesh Gupta Ca Respondent By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.01.2022

Section 80I

attend his office on or before 15.12.2017 and the order was passed by the learned officer on 19.12.2017 without giving the final opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is worthwhile to point out that the AO can’t do injustice with the assessee just due to illness ... before AO for a reasonable cause by assessee, the CIT (A) must admit the additional evidences and assessee must be given an afresh opportunity of being heard. In the case of “Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT 1991 AIR 241, 1990 SCR Supl. (1) 340 the Hon’able Supreme

Universal Buildwelll (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1166/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: The Ld.

Section 14ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 41(1)

Order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is illegal and bad in law as the same has been passed without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. 3. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (A) was not justified in upholding

Shri Ajaykumar Satrapal Singh, Mumbai vs. CIT -It-4, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 781/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Kuldip Singh (Jm)

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(2)Section 50CSection 50C(1)

with the directions to the AO to make a fresh assessment in accordance with law keeping in view the above observations after allowing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. Against the above order, assessee is in appeal before us. 9. We have heard both the parties and perused ... accordance with law. Needless to add, AO shall take into account, the provisions of law contained section 50C and give the assessee proper opportunity of being heard. In this view of the matter, in our considered opinion, there is no reason to quash the order passed u/s. 263. Hence

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - 21(1), Mumbai vs. Achal Housing LLP, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2696/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Kuldip Singh (Jm)

Section 271Section 47

without being influenced by other observation of the Ld.CIT(A) as above. Needless to add, assessee should be granted adequate opportunity of being heard. 7 Achal Housing LLP 8. In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. ITA No. 2697/Mum/2019 for AY 2014-15 9. In this case

Swiss Re Global Business Solutions India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 397/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133(6)

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

M/S. Rameshwar Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT-20, Mumbai

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

ITA 522/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Promod Kumar () & Ms. Suchitra Kamble () Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Rameshwar Enterprises, Pr. Cit-20, Room No. 418, 4Th Floor, Piramal 401, Rangoli Time Complex, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Parel (E), Vs. Chamber, Lal Baug, Parel, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Aahfr 2612 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Piushchhajed, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/01/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/01/2022

For Appellant: Mr. PiushChhajed, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)(b)

facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Pr. CIT erred under law by passing revision order without giving opportunity of being heard. 3. The assessee filed return of income on 30.09.2015 declaring total income at ₹7,10,710/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Income

J. Builders Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 10 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7203/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

file before him. It is needless to mention that both the Assessing Officer and assessee shall be afforded 8 ITA 7203/Mum/2019 adequate opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed, for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical

Mukta Gas Services P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO - 12(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1772/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyai.T.A. No. 1772/Mum/2020 (Assessment Year 2011-12) Vs. Ito-12(3)(4) Mukta Gas Services Pvt.Ltd. C/O. A/1207, Ratnaakar Nine Room No.147A, 1St Floor Square, Opp. Keshavbaugh Aykar Bhawan Party Plot, Satellite Mumbai-400 020 Ahemdabad-380015

Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

issue to the file of Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) shall pass appropriate speaking order as per law after giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard. 8. In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose. Pronounced in the open court on 19 .01.2022 (SHAMIM

M/S Wsg Pictures Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Cir. 16(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1390/MUM/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Ms. Suchitra Kamble () M/S Wsg Pictures Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Conference Room No. 4, Taj Vs. Tax, Circle-16(1), Wellington Mews, 33, (Erstwhile Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-7(1) Nathalal Marg, Colaba, Room No. 439, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Mumbai – 400001 Bhawan, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020 Pan No. Aaccp5459R (Assessee) (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin Kashinath, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, D.R
Section 144Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 40A(3)Section 43BSection 68

learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in passing an ex-parte order under Section 250 of the Act without giving opportunity of being heard to the Appellant and thereby upholding order passed by AO under Section 144 of the Act. The Id. CIT(A) and Id. AO erred

Cisco Systems Services B.V, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 961/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 961/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Cisco Systems Services B.V. – India The Deputy Branch, Commissioner Of Brigade South Parade, Income Tax, No. 10, International Taxation, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Circle – 1(1), Vs. Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Pan: Aaccc4836D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkaihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 19-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-01-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaithis Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld.Ao Dated 27.02.2017 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(14) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 [The Act] On The Following Grounds: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Cisco Systems Services B.V. - India Branch (Hereinafter Referred To As The 'Appellant.) Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Taxation) - Circle 1(1) ('Assessing Officer' Or 'Ao') Dated February 27, 2017 In Pursuance Of The Directions & The Revised Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel ('Drp'), Bangalore Dated December 29, 2016 & January 16. 2017 Respectively, Under Section 253 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('Act) On The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, CA
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 92C

Dispute Resolution Panel shall be binding on the Assessing Officer. (11) No direction under sub-section (5) shall be issued unless an opportunity of being heard is given to the assessee and the Assessing Officer on such directions which are prejudicial to the interest of the assessee or the interest ... conformity with the directions, complete, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 153 or section 153B, the assessment without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee, within one month from the end of the month in which such direction is received. (14) The Board may make

Xchanging Solutions Limited, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 556/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Raghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arunkumar, CIT(DR)(TP)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 10A(4)Section 143(3)Section 155

guarantee fee. 13. The learned AO and the learned TPO have erred, in law and in facts by not providing an opportunity of being heard to the Appellant before making the adjustment with respect to reimbursement of expenses which is violative of principles of natural justice, resulting in unjustified demand ... regard to corporate guarantee, the TPO may also consider the same while determining ALP of corporate guarantee. The TPO must provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before deciding the issue. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes." It is pertinent to note that in case

ITO, Bangalore vs. M/S Xchanging Solutions Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 402/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Raghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arunkumar, CIT(DR)(TP)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 10A(4)Section 143(3)Section 155

guarantee fee. 13. The learned AO and the learned TPO have erred, in law and in facts by not providing an opportunity of being heard to the Appellant before making the adjustment with respect to reimbursement of expenses which is violative of principles of natural justice, resulting in unjustified demand ... regard to corporate guarantee, the TPO may also consider the same while determining ALP of corporate guarantee. The TPO must provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before deciding the issue. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes." It is pertinent to note that in case

Xchanging Solutions Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 492/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Raghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arunkumar, CIT(DR)(TP)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 10A(4)Section 143(3)Section 155

guarantee fee. 13. The learned AO and the learned TPO have erred, in law and in facts by not providing an opportunity of being heard to the Appellant before making the adjustment with respect to reimbursement of expenses which is violative of principles of natural justice, resulting in unjustified demand ... regard to corporate guarantee, the TPO may also consider the same while determining ALP of corporate guarantee. The TPO must provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before deciding the issue. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes." It is pertinent to note that in case

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Xchanging Solutions Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 459/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Raghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arunkumar, CIT(DR)(TP)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 10A(4)Section 143(3)Section 155

guarantee fee. 13. The learned AO and the learned TPO have erred, in law and in facts by not providing an opportunity of being heard to the Appellant before making the adjustment with respect to reimbursement of expenses which is violative of principles of natural justice, resulting in unjustified demand ... regard to corporate guarantee, the TPO may also consider the same while determining ALP of corporate guarantee. The TPO must provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before deciding the issue. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes." It is pertinent to note that in case

Shorline Hotel P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT- CC-1(2), Mumbai

In the result, all these appeals by the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 253/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

called ambiguous wording in the notice [has not] impaired or prejudiced the right of the assessee to a reasonable opportunity of being heard". It went onto observe that for sustaining the plea of natural justice on the ground of absence of opportunity, "it has to be established that prejudice

Sri Ramesh Harish, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3114/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Ramesh Harish, Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, #54/5, 7Th Cross, Lakshmi Road, Ward-2(1), Shanthinagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 027. Pan –Aauph 4344 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr Osd) Date Of Hearing : 03.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2022 O R D E R Per Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR OSD)
Section 143(3)Section 69

Ld.AO for proper verification of facts. Assessee is directed to establish the entries in the bank accounts independently. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to assessee. 5. Ground no.2 for addition towards payment of vehicle tax is not pressed by the assessee and hence

Raghav Softech Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 20(4), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7127/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Raghav Softech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Vardhman Grand Plaza, Manglam Ward-20(4) Place, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi New Delhi Aaecr2527G Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.01.2022

Section 147Section 148Section 69

erred, both on facts and in law, in sustaining the assessment despite the fact that the Ld. Assessing Officer has not given proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant and has not confronted the appellant with the material collected behind the back of the appellant upon which the Assessing

M/S. Bci Optical Disc. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 2234/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. C.N. Prasadassessment Year: 2011-12 Bci Optical Disc. Ltd. Income Tax Officer 2, Ssi, Industrial Area Vs Ward- 4 (2) G. T. Karnal Road, New Delhi Delhi-110033 Pan No.Aaacb0517G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 50Section 50C

directed to get the valuation done as on 05.01.2010 and decide issue afresh after affording a reasonable and fair opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Decision announced in the open court in the presence

Dy CIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Smt. Mitali R Lakhanpal, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 973/MUM/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 149Section 149(1)Section 149(1)(c)

erred in discarding the objections to reopening and reasons thereof submitted by the Appellant. 5) The AO erred in not providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the Appellant and thereby completely violating the principles of natural justice and 'Audi alteram partem' i.e. no man should be condemned unheard

Maxval Technologies P. Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT, Panvel Circle, Panvel

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1931/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

Section 10Section 10ASection 10BSection 139(5)Section 1QSection 288

deduction u/s. 10A on merits and pass an order as per law. 5 10. Needless to add, assessee should be granted adequate opportunity of being heard. 11. In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Pronounced in the open court on 17.01.2022 (SHAMIM YAHYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated