← 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

Girish Kidiyappa Nashi, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-6(3)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 680/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 144Section 69

passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Page 5 of 16 Assessing Officer submitted the remand report without providing an opportunity of being heard to the Appellant wherein he has admitted the source for the cash deposits to the tune

M/S. Finastra Software Solutions (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2695/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.2695/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Finastra Software Solutions (India) Vs. The Acit, Private Limited, Circle - 4(1)(2), [Formerly Known As Misys Software Solutions Bengaluru. (India) Pvt. Ltd.,], 4Th To 6Th Floor, North Tower, Virgo Building, Bagmane Constellation, Bengaluru – 500 037. Pan : Aaack 9067 G Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Arunkumar, Cit(Tp-2)(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 16.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2021 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Final Order Of Assessment Dated 06.10.2017 Of Acit, Circle – 4(1)(2), Bengaluru, Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) In Relation To Ay 2013-2014. 2. The Issue That Arises For Consideration In The Above Appeal Pertains To The Aggregate Transfer Pricing Adjustment (“Tp Adjustment”) Of Rs.14,33,66,140/- Made By The Transfer Pricing Officer (‘The Tpo’ For Short) Towards The International Transactions Of Provision Of Software Development Services (Rs.13,56,24,957/-) & Information Technology Enabled Services

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Arunkumar, CIT(TP-2)(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92

will compute the ALP of international transaction of rendering SWD services as per directions given above, after affording assessee opportunity of being heard. 18. Information Technology Enabled Services : As far as the ITeS segment is concerned, the financial results of the assessee are as follows: Operating Income Rs.19 ... accordingly. 31. We direct the TPO to compute the ALP in ITeS segment as per directions contained in this order, after affording assessee opportunity of being heard. 32. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption

M/S. Royal Inframart Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2921/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: For Revenue : Shri Anil Gandhi, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gandhi, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 250Section 68

learned CIT (Appeals)- 36 is against the principles of equity and natural justice as the order was passed ex-parte without giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee/appellant company. 2. That by passing the Order ex-parte the Ld. CIT (Appeals)-36 confirmed the order

San Disk India Device Design Centre Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 543/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 92C

compute the ALP of the international transaction of rendering SWD services segment in accordance with the directions in this order, after affording assessee opportunity of being heard. IT(TP)A Nos.543, 341/Bang/2015 Page 17 of 36 24. The next ground that requires adjudication is ground 1.2 raised by the assessee ... Nos.543, 341/Bang/2015 Page 25 of 36 transaction in the MSS segment as per the direction contained above, after affording assessee opportunity of being heard. 31. The other grounds in the assessee’s appeal which are pressed for adjudication were ground 9 with regard to computation of deduction under section

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Sandisk India Device Design Centre Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 341/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 92C

compute the ALP of the international transaction of rendering SWD services segment in accordance with the directions in this order, after affording assessee opportunity of being heard. IT(TP)A Nos.543, 341/Bang/2015 Page 17 of 36 24. The next ground that requires adjudication is ground 1.2 raised by the assessee ... Nos.543, 341/Bang/2015 Page 25 of 36 transaction in the MSS segment as per the direction contained above, after affording assessee opportunity of being heard. 31. The other grounds in the assessee’s appeal which are pressed for adjudication were ground 9 with regard to computation of deduction under section

Ganeshan Manimaran, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 351/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2017-18 Ganeshan Manimaran, Vs. Ito, No.405, Elegantsplendor 102 1St Floor, Ward – 1(2)(2), 7Th Main, Hrbr Layout, 1St Block, Bengaluru. Kalyanagar, Bengaluru – 560 043. Pan : Acxpm 9353 R Assessee By : Shri. Sanjay B Chikkamath, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2021 O R D E R Er N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 12.05.2021 Of Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Is An Individual. He Filed Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2017-18 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.11,54,750/-. The Assessee Had Deposited Cash In 2 Bank Accounts Maintained By Him In Canara Bank, Cox Town, Bengaluru, Totaling A Sum Of Rs.30,30,318/-. The Assessee Was Called Upon To Explain The Source Of Funds Out Of Which The Aforesaid Cash Deposits Were Made Especially During The Demonetization Period. Since There Was No Response From The Assessee, The Cit(A) Added A Sum Of Rs.30,30,318/- As Unexplained Cash Deposits Under Section 68 Of The Act & Computed Tax Liability As Per The Provisions Of Section 115Bbe Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). Page 2 Of 4

For Appellant: Shri. Sanjay B Chikkamath, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department
Section 115BSection 249Section 68

Assessee before CIT(A) and direct the CIT(A) to decide the appeal of the Assessee on merits after affording Assessee opportunity of being heard. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose. Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned

Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 940/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

interest of revenue unless the view taken by AO is unsustainable in law". iii) Order is set aside hurriedly without providing proper opportunity of being heard in violation of provisions of natural justice. 4 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, notice/order

Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 939/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

interest of revenue unless the view taken by AO is unsustainable in law". iii) Order is set aside hurriedly without providing proper opportunity of being heard in violation of provisions of natural justice. 4 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, notice/order

Shardha Nand Sharma, Faridabad vs. Itd, CPC, Bengaluru

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1140/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad[Assessment Year : 2018-19) & [Assessment Year : 2019-20)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 36Section 43B

circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in passing the order without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in clear violation of principle of natural justice. [Assessment Year : 2019-20) 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case ... circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in passing the order without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in clear violation of principle of natural justice. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, ld has erred

Shardha Nand Sharma, Faridabad vs. Itd, CPC, Bengaluru

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1139/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad[Assessment Year : 2018-19) & [Assessment Year : 2019-20)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 36Section 43B

circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in passing the order without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in clear violation of principle of natural justice. [Assessment Year : 2019-20) 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case ... circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in passing the order without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in clear violation of principle of natural justice. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, ld has erred

Cloos India Welding Technology Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 6(2), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5732/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad[Assessment Year : 2015-16] Cloos India Welding Technology Pvt. Vs Ito Ltd. Ward-6 (2) 1St Floor 81, Hemkunt Colony New Delhi New Delhi Aaecc5526E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ravi Bhatia, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 13.12.2021

Section 250(6)

provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act, as the order passed by him is non speaking and without affording any proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has 5. ignored various judicial rulings, wherein it was held that section ... merits apart from Ground No. 4, challenging the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in disposing of the appeal ex-parte without affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted at the outset that appeal was disposed off ex-parte by the Ld.CIT

DCIT, Circle- 12(1), New Delhi vs. Indo Rama Industries Ltd., Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is

ITA 6708/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr.DR
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 32

erred in allowing depreciation on the fixed assets on the ground that the AO had made high-pitched assessment without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, not appreciating the fact that the assessee was given ample opportunities to prove that the assets had been actually ... queries raised to this effect in notice u/s 142(1} dated 06.11.2015 (followed by reminder dated 08.12.2015) and the fact more than 10 opportunities of being heard were given to the assessee to furnish details/evidence in support of the queries raised in the said notices. (d) Without prejudice

Akhil Bhartiya Grameen Vikas Sanstha, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 53(4), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7035/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad[Assessment Year : 2013-14] Akhil Bhartiya Grameen Vikas Vs Ito Sanstha Ward-53 (4) 1442, Wazir Nagar, Kotla Mubarkpur, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaaaa5560E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 13.12.2021

Section 143(3)

decide the appeal of the assessee on merits after condoning the delay, if any, by providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. Facts being identical respectfully, following the above said decisions, I restore this appeal to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) who shall consider ... disposed of the same on merits after condoning the delay if any in filing the appeal filed electronically and after providing adequate opportunity of being heard . 6. In result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on this 13th

Tejbir Singh, Karnal vs. ITO, Ward- 4, Panipat

Appeal is disposed off in accordance with the aforesaid directions

ITA 6311/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Delhi09 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: The Appeal Is Heard Or Disposed Off.” Tejbir Singh Vs. Ito

Section 143(3)

aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for a fresh (de novo) order in accordance with law, after providing the assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard. (E.1) In view of the foregoing, and as both sides are in agreement to this, we set aside the impugned appellate order dated

ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi vs. Pride Residency (P) Ltd. (in the Case of Spn Milk Products Inds. P.Ltd.), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4182/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. V.K. Dhingra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. T Kipgen, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 264

therefore, he directed the Assessing Officer to reassess the income in the hands of the existing correct legal entity after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after examination and scrutiny of all the relevant material and verification including the submissions made by the assessee. 3. Pursuant ... therefore, he directed the Assessing Officer to reassess the income in the hands of the existing correct legal entity after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after examination and scrutiny of all the relevant material and verification including the submissions made by the assessee. 11. Learned

Ashu Tyagi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward - 1(1), Ghaziabad

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 9511/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Ashu Tyagi Vs Ito C/O. Sanjeev Anand & Associates 77, Ward-1 (1) Navyug Market, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh Ahqpt9609R Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sanjeev Agarwal, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 08.12.2021

Section 147Section 250(2)Section 69

view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 9,61,556/- without affording opportunity of being heard and allegedly on the ground that the appellant has not carried out any business activity, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances ... treated as un-admitted. 6. Keeping in view of the above facts, it appears that appellant is not interested in availing the opportunities of being heard given to the appellant u/s 250(2). Therefore the appeal is being decided based on material available before undersigned. On merits of the case

Omveer Singh, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 8109/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aakash Deep Jain & Shri N.K. Billaiyaita No. 8108/Del/2018 [A.Y 2009-10] Ita No. 8109/Del/2018 [A.Y 2009-10]

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

directed to decide the appeal on merits of the case after giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. In so far as the appeal relating to levy of penalty is concerned, we find that there was delay of two months in filing the appeal ... issue of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act after deciding the quantum appeal and after giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 10. In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No. 8108 and 8109/DEL/2018 are allowed for statistical purposes

Omveer Singh, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 8108/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aakash Deep Jain & Shri N.K. Billaiyaita No. 8108/Del/2018 [A.Y 2009-10] Ita No. 8109/Del/2018 [A.Y 2009-10]

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

directed to decide the appeal on merits of the case after giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. In so far as the appeal relating to levy of penalty is concerned, we find that there was delay of two months in filing the appeal ... issue of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act after deciding the quantum appeal and after giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 10. In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No. 8108 and 8109/DEL/2018 are allowed for statistical purposes

Rakesh Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6335/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 246Section 271(1)(c)

speaking orders as per procedure provided u/s. 250(6) of the Act. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given an opportunity of being heard on merits. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the ld. CIT(A) in getting the appeals decided on merits. 7. In the result

Rakesh Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6334/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 246Section 271(1)(c)

speaking orders as per procedure provided u/s. 250(6) of the Act. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given an opportunity of being heard on merits. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the ld. CIT(A) in getting the appeals decided on merits. 7. In the result