“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

Shri Vaishnav Parivar Bahuuddeshiy Sevabhavi Sanstha, Jalna vs. CIT(E), Pune

In the result, the appeals of the appellant is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2611/PUN/2024[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Feb 2025AY 2024-2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2611/Pun/2024

For Appellant: Shri Piyush PremchandFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

appellant to substantiate its case by filing requisite details and decide the issue as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the appellant. The appellant is also hereby directed to make its submissions, if any, before the ld. CIT(E) on the appointed date without

Y D Limaye Memorial Educational Trust, Pune vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the appellant are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2551/PUN/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Feb 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2550 & 2551/Pun/2024

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)

Y D Limaye Memorial Educational Trust, Pune vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the appellant are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2550/PUN/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Feb 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2550 & 2551/Pun/2024

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)

Shri Siddheshwar Shiv Mandir Trust, Yavatmal vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

In the result, the appeals of the appellant is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2351/PUN/2024[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Feb 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2351/Pun/2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

Poona Shims Kamagarsahakari Patsanstha, Pune vs. ITO Ward 9(3), Pune

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

ITA 2332/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2332/Pun/2024 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Poona Shimsari Vs Ito, Ward 9(3), Kamgarsahkari Patsanstha, Pune Mumbai Pune Highway, Vadgaon Maval Pune- 412106 Maharashtra Pan-Aadap9903D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sachin P. KumarFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl

Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)Section 270ASection 270A(9)

facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has passed the order u/s 250 without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard and thus violating the principles of 'audi alteram partem'. 3. That, on facts and in the circumstances of the case ... assessment order passed u/s 144 which is the very foundation of this penalty order being contested is an ex parte order wherein sufficient opportunity of being heard was not granted to the appellant. 6. That, on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) NFAC

Sunanda Rajabhau Vaidya Charitable Trust, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

In the result, the appeals of the appellant is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2327/PUN/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Feb 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2327/Pun/2024 Sunanda Rajabhau Vaidya Vs. Cit (Exemption), Charitable Trust, Pune Flat No.9, 10, Smruti Apartment, Mahaganesh Colony, Paud Road, Kothrud, Pune 411 038, Maharashtra Pan : Aants9394Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: None

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

Guru Nanak Mission Trust, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Exemption Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 974/HYD/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.974/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) Guru Nanak Mission Trust, Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Hyderabad. Income Tax-Exemption, Pan:Aabtg0502G Circle 1(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Mohd. Fakhruddin, C.A. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 30/01/2025 Hearing: घोर्णध की 13/02/2025 तधरीख/Pronouncement: आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Guru Nanak Mission Trust (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 31.07.2024 For The A.Y. 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds :

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Fakhruddin, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, SR-DR

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

allow the claim of the ITA Nos.974/Hyd/2024 5 assessee in accordance with law. Needless to say, the Ld. AO shall provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing order. Appeal of the assessee is disposed off accordingly. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee

DCIT., Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Team Universal Infratech Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, ITA.No.970/Hyd

ITA 970/HYD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 201

issue back to the file of learned jurisdictional Assessing Officer with a direction to re-decide the issue de novo, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard ITA.Nos.969 & 970/Hyd/2024 to the assessee. Needless to say, it is the risk and responsibility of the assessee to plead and prove

M/S Taranga Vyapar Pvt. Ltd, Siliguri vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Siliguri

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

ITA 673/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 673/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 M/S. Taranga Vyapar Pvt. Ltd.,…………...……Appellant C/O. Durga Hyundai, Sevoke Road, Pc Mittal Bus Stand, Siliguri, Darjeeling-734001, West Bengal [Pan:Aacct4027H] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………....Respondent Ward-2(1), Siliguri, Aayakar Bhawan, Paribahan Nagar, Matigara, Siliguri-734010, W.B.

Section 144Section 147

principle of natural justice, and remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before

Sangeeta Agarwal, Kolkata vs. Dy. CIT, Central Circle 1(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2340/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2340/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sangeeta Agarwal………....………………………………………..….……….Appellant 55/1B, Strand Road, 2Nd Floor, Posta, Kolkata – 700006. [Pan: Acrpa8642H] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata………....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Piyush Lakhotia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Archana Gupta, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 13, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 13, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 15.04.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.9,10,980/-. In The Case Of The Assessee, Assessment Was Completed U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 & 144B Of The Act. The Assessing Officer Made Addition Of Rs.33,84,750/- Which Was Alleged To Be Long-Term Capital Gains Which Was Claimed As Exemption By The Assessee In Her Return Of Income. 3. Dissatisfied With The Above Order, The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Against The Assessment Order. However, The Ld.

Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)

issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to re-examine the case on merits after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee to represent her case. We also direct the assessee to diligently comply with the notices issued and promptly participate

Daya Saroop Usha Bhalla Welfare Foundation Trust, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(2), Exemption, Kolkata

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

ITA 2306/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata13 Feb 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2306/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Daya Saroop Usha Bhalla Welfare Foundation Trust,……………….………….……Appellant 45, Park Street, Kolkata-700016 [Pan:Aabtd7252Q] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………....Respondent Ward-1(2), Exemption, Kolkata, 10B, Sur William Jones Sarani, Middleton Row, Park Street Area, Kolkata-700071

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 154

Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(1), Gangtok, Sikkim vs. Nirmala Sharma, Soreng, West Sikkim

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2298/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 147Section 250Section 69

accepted the contention of the Ld. AO in denying the claim of benefit u/s 10(26AAA) of the Act, however, without allowing an opportunity of being heard to the Ld. AO, treated the entire deposit as income from contract by admitting additional evidence in violation of Rule ... claim that the income was exempt u/s 10(26AAA) of the Act as per the provisions thereof and shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission it wants to make in support of the relief claimed. The assessee shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. Accordingly

Nirmala Sharma, Gangtok vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), Gangtok

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2227/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Feb 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 147Section 250Section 69

Sarbomangala Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., Purba Bardhaman vs. I.T.O., Ward - 2(3), Burdwan

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

ITA 1475/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Feb 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz)

Section 144Section 148

New Contai Nursery School, Contai, Purba Medinipur vs. I.T.O., Ward - 27(1), Haldia, Purba Medinipur

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

ITA 1420/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata13 Feb 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1420/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 New Contai Nursery School,…………….……Appellant Hatabari, Contai, Purba Medinipur-721401, West Bengal [Pan:Aabtn8117G] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………....Respondent Ward-27(1), Haldia, Income Tax Office, Dubey House, 2Nd Floor, Basudebpur, Talpukur, Khanjan Chalk, Purba Medinipur, Haldia-721602, West Bengal

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 144

principle of natural justice, and remit the matter back to the file of ld. Assessing Officer with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before

Alcom Investment Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1366/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Feb 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1366/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Alcom Investment Pvt. Ltd..………………………………………..….……….Appellant 10Th Floor, Gold Crest, Ns Road No.10, Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400049. [Pan: Aaccg1658B] Vs. Ito, Ward-12(1), Kolkata………................................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Deepak Shaha, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Archana Gupta, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 12, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 13, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 29.05.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Trading In Shares & Financing Loans. The Assessee Has Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2017-18 On 03.11.2017 Declaring Income Of Rs.15,16,410/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & During The Assessment Proceedings, It Was Observed That The Assessee Had Received An Advance Of Rs.20,00,000/- From M/S Mars Fincom Pvt. Ltd. In The Financial Year 2016-17. It Was Noted By The Assessing Officer That The Lender Was A Sister Concern Of Assessee & Held 16.21% Shares In It. Several Notices Were Issued To The Assessee During The Assessment Proceedings But There Was No Proper

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

issue back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to re-examine the grounds raised by the assessee afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. In terms of the above, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 17th February

Strongbuilt Constructions Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. OSD TDS Cir ITO TDS WD 2(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6621/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: 11/02/2025

erred in not granting proper, sufficient and The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not granting proper, sufficient and adequate opportunity of adequate opportunity of being heard to the Appellant while framing being heard to the Appellant while framing the appellate order. the appellate order. 2.2 It is submitted that

Strongbuild Constructions Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. OSD TDS Cir ITO TDS WD 2(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6620/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: 11/02/2025

Kpmg Advisory Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle-6(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5396/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeita No. 5395/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2012-13) Ita No. 5393/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2015-16) M/S. Kpmg Advisory Services Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Private Limited Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Churchgate, 2Nd Floor, Block T2 (B Wing), Mumbai Vs. Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mills Compound, N. M. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain a/w Shri Siddhesh Chaugule &For Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(2)(h)

KACSL. 5. The NFAC/CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowances without considering all the submissions of the Appellant and without giving an opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. 6. The NFAC/CIT(A) erred in passing the order just 1 day post uploading the Appellant's submission ... April 2011 3. The NFAC/CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowances without considering all the submissions of the Appellant and without giving an opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. 4. The NFAC/CIT(A) erred in passing the order just 1 day post uploading the Appellant's submission

Kpmg Advisory Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle-6(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5395/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain a/w Shri Siddhesh Chaugule &For Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(2)(h)