← 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

Sh Viswadeepak Tiwari, Gwalior vs. ITO 3(1), Gwalior

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

ITA 199/AGR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh**

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

adjudication of the grounds raised by the assessee before it in accordance with law. Needless to mention that the assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is at liberty to raise additional grounds and file additional evidences, if any, if it so desires. With these directions

Natthi Singh, Dehtora vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward

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

ITA 196/AGR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Natthi Singh, Vs. Ito, Mohhamadpur, Dehtora, Up Ward (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jfqps8274N Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 148Section 292B

after duly taking into account the objections and the explanations given by the assessee. Needless to mention that the assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. With these directions, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee

M/S Shiv Balaji Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Etawah vs. ITO.-2(2)(5), Etawah

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

ITA 141/AGR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S Shiv Balaji Cold Storage Vs. The Ito (P) Ltd., Ward-2(2)(5), Jaswant Nagar, Etawah Etawah-206245 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aapcs8415B Assessee By : Shri Anurag Sinha, Adv Revenue By: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2025

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

Learned CITA for de novo adjudication in accordance with law qua the surviving issues alone. Needless to mention the assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is directed to cooperate with Learned CITA for expeditious disposal of the appeal by not taking unwarranted adjournments. Hence, the grounds

Madhu Anil Mark, Bhilai Nagar vs. ACIT, Circle-1 Bhilai, Bhilai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 533/RPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur03 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.533/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Madhu Anil Mark Block No.D7, Flat No.19, Chauhan Green Vally, Moti Lal Nehru Nagar, Durg (C.G)-490 020 Pan : Aippm0087J

For Appellant: Shri A.K Pansari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Tarannum Verma, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144

latter’s order is liable to be set-aside with a direction to him to re- adjudicate the same after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8 Madhu Anil Mark Vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Bhilai 12. Apropos the source of the cash deposits of Rs.20 lacs ... Appeals) shall in the course of the set-aside proceedings 10 Madhu Anil Mark Vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Bhilai afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee who shall remain at a liberty to substantiate his aforesaid claim on the basis of fresh documentary evidence, if any. Although

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur vs. Virendra Kumar Agrawal, Raipur

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 485/RPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur03 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 485/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 57Section 68Section 69C

Income Tax Rules, 1962. Needless to say, the CIT(Appeals) shall in the course of the set-aside proceedings afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus, the Grounds of appeal Nos. 1 to 5 raised by the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes. Grounds of appeal

Nkt Tanstructural, Nagpur vs. ITO, Ward 1(4), Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 44/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Mahadev Vichare, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250(6)

file of learned CIT(A) with a direction to re-decide the issue afresh, as per fact and law, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Needless to say, it is for the assessee company to plead and prove it’s case before the learned

Reackon Concretes Private Limited, Nagpur vs. DCIT Or ACIT Circle-4, Nagpur

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

ITA 42/NAG/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Feb 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Mahadev Vichare, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

assessee to substantiate it’s case with all documentary evidences before him. The learned CIT(A) is directed to provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In the event of assessee’s failure to substantiate it’s case, the learned CIT(A) is at liberty to pass appropriate

Krishna Laxmanrao Gabhane, Amravati vs. I.T.O., Ward - 2, Amravati

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

ITA 358/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Atal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

restore the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer for afresh verification and adjudication of the matter in issue, by providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Needless to say, it is the sole risk and responsibility of the assessee to plead and prove his case

Padmavati Realities, Nagpur vs. PCIT - Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Nagpur

In the result, ITA.No.251/NAG

ITA 255/NAG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

For Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148(2)Section 151Section 34

delete the impugned addition(s) by giving full relief to the assessees. He submitted that the PCIT must give the assessee an opportunity of being heard with regard to error which he proposes to revise u/sec.263 of the Act. In absence of sufficient opportunity to the assessee, the order passed

Padmavati Realities, Nagpur vs. PCIT - Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Nagpur

In the result, ITA.No.251/NAG

ITA 254/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

For Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148(2)Section 151Section 34

delete the impugned addition(s) by giving full relief to the assessees. He submitted that the PCIT must give the assessee an opportunity of being heard with regard to error which he proposes to revise u/sec.263 of the Act. In absence of sufficient opportunity to the assessee, the order passed

Neel Infratech, Nagpur vs. PCIT - Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Nagpur

In the result, ITA.No.251/NAG

ITA 253/NAG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

For Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148(2)Section 151Section 34

delete the impugned addition(s) by giving full relief to the assessees. He submitted that the PCIT must give the assessee an opportunity of being heard with regard to error which he proposes to revise u/sec.263 of the Act. In absence of sufficient opportunity to the assessee, the order passed

Neel Infratech, Nagpur vs. PCIT - Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Nagpur

In the result, ITA.No.251/NAG

ITA 252/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

For Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148(2)Section 151Section 34

delete the impugned addition(s) by giving full relief to the assessees. He submitted that the PCIT must give the assessee an opportunity of being heard with regard to error which he proposes to revise u/sec.263 of the Act. In absence of sufficient opportunity to the assessee, the order passed

Neel Infratech, Nagpur vs. PCIT - Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur-1, Nagpur

In the result, ITA.No.251/NAG

ITA 251/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

For Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148(2)Section 151Section 34

delete the impugned addition(s) by giving full relief to the assessees. He submitted that the PCIT must give the assessee an opportunity of being heard with regard to error which he proposes to revise u/sec.263 of the Act. In absence of sufficient opportunity to the assessee, the order passed

Pushpadas Raghavan, Alappuzha vs. ITO, Ward 2, Alappuzha

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

ITA 606/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Respondent: Shri Suresh Kumar Varma
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

decide the issue denovo after considering the various documents, if any, to be filed by the assessee and also after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Page 4 of 4 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order

Rekha Singh, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 844/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Artham Rajesh, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, SR-DR
Section 144Section 250(6)Section 69A

justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the issue to the file of Ld. AO to decide afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to co-operate in the assessment proceedings and file all the relevant documents within

Durga Prasada Rao Vattem, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-13(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for sta"s"cal purposes

ITA 1412/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. V. Koteswaramma, Sr. AR
Section 10(38)Section 147

without seeking any adjournments and the learned CIT(A) to take a fresh look at the ma"er, a"er affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds are accordingly treated as allowed for sta"s"cal purposes. 12. In the result, appeal of the assessee

Sankarlal Naik Karamsi, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1257/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad03 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumara N D Shri Manjunatha, G. & आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1257/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Sankarlal Naik Vs. Income Tax Officer Karamsi, Hyderabad Ward 8(1) Pan:Ancpk0584A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/02/2025 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03/10/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Against The Law, Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of Case.

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that he could not gather the requisite information from the assessee and prayed for another opportunity of being heard before the learned CIT (A). 6. On the other hand, the learned DR submitted that the assessee neither appeared or submitted any written submissions either

Jamia Abu Ubaida Educational and Welfare Society, Atmakur vs. CIT (Exemption), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 1230/HYD/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Feb 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Mohammad Irfan ShaikFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 254

assessee. Further, we direct the learned CIT(Exemption) to decide the case afresh after considering those additional evidence and also after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per the principles of natural justice. Thus, the grounds raised in ITA No. 1229/Hyd/2024 are answered accordingly. 9. With ... assessee and direct the learned CIT(Exemption) to decide the case afresh after considering the additional evidence and also after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per the principles of natural justice. The grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No. 1230/Hyd/2024 are answered accordingly. Page

Jamia Abu Ubaida Educational and Welfare Society, Atmakur vs. CIT (Exemption), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 1229/HYD/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Feb 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Mohammad Irfan ShaikFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 254

assessee. Further, we direct the learned CIT(Exemption) to decide the case afresh after considering those additional evidence and also after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per the principles of natural justice. Thus, the grounds raised in ITA No. 1229/Hyd/2024 are answered accordingly. 9. With ... assessee and direct the learned CIT(Exemption) to decide the case afresh after considering the additional evidence and also after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per the principles of natural justice. The grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No. 1230/Hyd/2024 are answered accordingly. Page

Wisdom Wings Charitable Trust, Atmakur vs. CIT (Exemption), Hyderabad

ITA 1228/HYD/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Feb 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Mohammad Irfan ShaikFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 254

assessee. Further, we direct the learned CIT(Exemption) to decide the case afresh after considering those additional evidence and also after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per the principles of natural justice. Thus, the grounds raised in ITA No. 1227/Hyd/2024 are answered accordingly. 9. With ... assessee and direct the learned CIT(Exemption) to decide the case afresh after considering the additional evidence and also after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per the principles of natural justice. The grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No. 1228/Hyd/2024 are answered accordingly. Page