“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 Satish Chandra Katta, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

ITA 438/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT-DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 50C

assessee, and thereafter make additions, if any, in accordance with the law. The assessee is directed to be provided with adequate opportunity of being heard and is expected to cooperate fully during the such set aside proceedings. GROUND NO. 4 38. In relation to Ground No. 4, the addition pertains ... consider the matter afresh, taking into account evidence submitted, and thereafter, make appropriate additions to the income of the assessee, if required. Adequate opportunity of being heard 41 ITA No. 331/JPR/2017 & 435 to 440/JPR/2018 ITA No. 467,468 & 352/JPR/2018 & 145 & 151/JPR/2024 shall be granted to the assessee to make submissions

Sri Ayyappaswamy Sannidhanachari Table Trust, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Bangalore

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

ITA 1898/BANG/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: Na

For Appellant: Sri B.S. Balachandran, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

dispute to the file of the ld. CIT (Exemptions) & the CIT (Exemptions) will pass an Order in accordance with Law after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to submit all the documents/records/Financials/Rules & Byelaws Sri Ayyappaswamy Sannidhana Charitable Trust, Bangalore Page 7 of 7 along with

Accutest Research Laboratories(India) Private Limiited, Navi Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 15(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5960/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri & Smt. Renu Jauhriaccutest Research V/S. Dcit-Circle 15(1)(1) Laboratories (India) Pvt. बनाम Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Ltd. Road, A-31 Midc, Ttc Industrial Churchgate, Ara, Kopar Khairane, Mumbai-400020 Thane, Navi Mumbai-400709 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadca0798B Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144B(1)Section 250Section 40

erred in passing an ex-parte order and dismissing 6 the appeal of the Appellant without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard 3. The CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the action of the AO in making the disallowance of Rs. 4,21,31,073/- being Rs.20 ... with this order, Ld. CIT(A) is in appeal before us. Ld. AR has submitted that the assessee was not provided an adequate opportunity of being heard by the Ld. CIT(A). Moreover, Ld. AO also did not issue requisite show P a g e | 3 A.Y. 2021-22 Accutest

Sureshkumar Ghewarchand Hundia, Grant Road, Opp. Shalimar Cinema, Mumbai vs. ITO, Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhawan

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

ITA 5926/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Ms Kavita Nabera on behalf ofFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia

Section 250Section 68

erred in confirming the action of Id. A.O. in passing the impugned order, without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Page |2 ITA No. 5926/Mum/2024 ALY. 2017-18 Sureshkumar Ghewarchand Hundia 2. On the facts and circumstances of Appellant's case ... assessee is in appeal before us. 5. At the outset, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that an adequate opportunity of being heard was not given to the assessee by the Ld. CIT(A). It was, therefore, requested that the matter may be remanded back for a fresh adjudication

Acme Housing India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5899/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant Pathak, ARFor Respondent: Dr. K. R. Subhash, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)Section 37Section 37(1)

Appeals) 48, Mumbai, ('CII(A)') erred in passing an ex-parte order and dismissing the appeal of the Appellant without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Appellant as well as rejecting the request for adjournment made by the Appellant. The Appellant prays that the order passed ... back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for denovo meritorious adjudication on the issues of merits raised herein by affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 4. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed its return of income on 07.11.2017 reporting total income at Nil. Assessee

Renita Christopher Dias, Vasai West vs. Assessing Officer - Ward 4(3) Thane, Thane

In the result, the appeal is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5787/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankarrenita Christopher Dias V/S. Assessing Officer - Ward 4(3) Miracle Villa Near New बनाम Thane, Room No. 14, A Wing, Green Park Society, Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, Wagle Karkhun Bhat, Papady – Industrial Estate, Thane – 401 207, Maharashtra 400 604, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Clvpd5679Q Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Mr. Rahim RajwaniFor Respondent: Shri Balasaheb Nagve (Sr. DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 234ASection 250Section 271ASection 69

appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for a thorough and compliant adjudication process. The ld. CIT(A) shall give proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with principles of natural justice in the set aside remand proceedings for de novo adjudication of the appeal

Rahul Kumar Singh, Ghansoli, Navi-Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer Income Tax Department Ward 28(2)(1), Mumbai, Vashi, Navi-Mumbai

ITA 3112/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Mohan Tandon, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 69Section 69A

seen that TDS was deducted by the appellant but the services provided by them to M/s Himadri Foods Ltd. (d) No proper opportunity of being heard was given to the appellant. (e) Ground No.5, 6 & 7 of the appellant also deals with similar facts and the plea of the appellant

Ramchandra Keshav and Company, Mumbai vs. CIT(A)-30, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 2027/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2017-18 Ramchandra Keshav & Cit(A)-30, Company, Mumbai. 53, Mohan Building, Vs. 162, J.S.S. Road, Girgaum, Mumbai. Pan : Aaafr1124J (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Anil Sathe For Revenue : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-12-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-12-2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Anil SatheFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.DR

Section 69A

this issue to the file of the AO for examining the same afresh in accordance with the directions given above, After providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the AO may take appropriate decision in accordance with law. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Income Tax Officer-2(1), Lucknow vs. Shri Jai Singh, Lucknow

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

ITA 443/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 69A

justice. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in passing the order without giving adequate opportunity of being heard. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the addition of Rs.5

Mr. Jai Singh, Lucknow vs. ITO, Range-2(5), Lucknow

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

ITA 368/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 69A

The Mohlia Katola Gram Sewa Sahkari Sabha Limited, Nahan vs. Income Tax Officer, Nahan

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 670/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Abhimanyu Jhamba, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 250(6)

para 3.3. 4. After hearing rival contentions and going through the facts of the case we noted that the CIT(A) has allowed opportunity of being heard six times by issuing various notices which are available on Income Tax e-Portal. We noted that the assessee has not cooperated with ... above, the order of CIT(A) is set aside and matter remanded back to his file for fresh adjudication allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 30.12.2024. ( MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER “Poonam” आदेश क" "ितिलिप

Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology, Patiala vs. DCIT, Exemptions Circle 1, Chandigarh

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 218/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Aditi Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250

outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to Ground No.3 that the CIT(A) has not granted opportunity of being heard through Video Conferencing as specified under Section 250(6B) of the Act under Faceless Appeals Scheme, 2021. Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention

Mr. Roshan A Kudalkar Through Legal Heir Mr. Swaroop R Kudalkar, Khed, Ratnagiri vs. ITO, Ward-3, Ratnagiri

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2276/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2276/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mr.Roshan A Kudalkar V The Income Tax Officer, (Through Legal Heir S Ward-3, Ratnagiri. Mr.Swaroop R Kudalkar), Room No.10/7, Virangula, Behind Animal Hospital Khed, Ratnagiri – 415709. Pan: Agkpk3817B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani – Ar Revenue By Smt. Shraddha Nichai – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 11/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Year 2015-16 Dated 19.08.2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On Facts & Circumstances Prevalling In The Case & As Per Provisions & Scheme Of The Act It Be Held That Ld. Cit(A)-Nfac Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Without Intimating About His Intention To Dismiss Appeal For Delay Of 46 Days In Filing Form 35. Accordingly, The Order So Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-Nfac Be Kindly Quashed & Ld. Cit(A)-Nfac Be Kindly Directed To Condone The Delay & Allow The Appellant To File It Submission On Merits & Legality. Accordingly, Appellant Be Granted Just & Proper Relief In This Respect.

Section 243ASection 250

account of Low closing stock should not be made 4.3 In view of the above discussion as also despite sufficient and reasonable opportunity of being heard given, the assessee had failed to comply with the statutory notices by furnishing necessary information in regard to the details of closing stock

Naveed Hasan Murtuza, Raigad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Panvel

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

ITA 2022/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl.CIT

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in passing the ex-parte order, without granting sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 2 On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming ... with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee and decide the issue as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to make its submissions, if any, before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC

Rajendra Rameshlal Gugale, Pune vs. Prinicipal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1676/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari, CIT

Section 1Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263Section 269SSection 69C

therefore, intend to set aside/modify the assessment order within the meaning of section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961. An opportunity of being heard is therefore, given to you. You are requested to attend in person or through your authorized representative оn 02.02.2024 at 03:30 PM in my office ... order. The Assessing Officer shall make necessary examination, verification and enquiries in respect of the above referred issues after giving adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.” 4. Aggrieved with such order of the PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following

Kasi Viswanath Gupta Chalamcharla, Raigad vs. ITO Ward 2, Panvel

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

ITA 1506/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl.CIT

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

invalid and unsustainable in law, as it has passed in violation of the Principles of natural Justice, without affording adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in upholding the addition of Rs.43

Rishi Khare, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-12(6), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 827/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.827/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Rishi Khare Vs. Ito, Ward-12(6) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Amjpk4465G] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Pankaj Sancheti, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri R.Kumaran, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 30/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.05.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2020-21. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That The Appeal Has Been Filed With A Delay Of 45 Days. The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Submitted That The Assessee Was Not Informed Of The Issuance Of The Order Dated 13.05.2024 By The Ld.Cit(A) & He Was Under The Genuine Belief That The Matter

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Sancheti, ARFor Respondent: : Shri R.Kumaran, DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 90

similar direction to allow the FTC of Rs. 4,40,939/- after due verification. Needless to say, the Assessing Officer shall give due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue as per fact and law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee

Jatan Raj Jain, Secunderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1715/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2013-14 Mr. Jatan Raj Jain Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 10(3), (Prop. Sri Kalyani Electro Hyderabad. World), Secunderabad. Pan : Abapj3416C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

upheld the same. 5. The order has been passed by the CIT(A)-6 without giving the assessee opportunity of being heard even though adjournments were submitted stating that the health of the assessee is not good and some time was asked for making further submission

Cloret Investments Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 11(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 724/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, DR

Section 68

therefore, the appeal is restored to the file of ld. CIT (A) with a direction to decide the same denovo, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 08. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open

Cloret Investments Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-11(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 723/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, DR

Section 68