← 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

Kkc Industries Private Limited, Faridabad vs. ACIT, Circle - 1, Faridabad

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1070/DEL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2022-23 Kkc Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Circle-1, 14/3, Mathura Road, Faridabad Near Mewla Maharajpur Metro Station, Faridabad-121003 Haryana (Pan: Aajck0032A) Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kinshuk GautamFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(1)

issues in dispute are remitted back to the file of the AO with the directions to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. 5. In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

Anil Kant, Model Town vs. DCIT Special Range 12, Delhi

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

ITA 1018/DEL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Manpreet Singh Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 154Section 68Section 69C

opportunity of Virtual hearing which was requested by assessee during the appellate proceeding which makes the CIT (A) order defective for want of opportunity of being heard. 16. Per contra the ld DR relied on the orders of the CIT(A). 17. We have heard the rival submissions and have

Bio Med Private Limited, Ghaziabad vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range, Ghaziabad

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3769/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

issues are remitted to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to finalise the same upon giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and upon considering the evidence on record and any other evidence which the assessee may choose to file at the time

Bio Med Private Limited, Ghaziabad vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range, Ghaziabad

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3768/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

issues are remitted to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to finalise the same upon giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and upon considering the evidence on record and any other evidence which the assessee may choose to file at the time

Bio Med Private Limited, Ghaziabad vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range, Ghaziabad

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3767/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

issues are remitted to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to finalise the same upon giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and upon considering the evidence on record and any other evidence which the assessee may choose to file at the time

Aashiyana Infratec P.Ltd, Noida vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, all the four appeals are allowed

ITA 341/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Jain, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Javed Akhtar, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

same ? 5. Under Section 254 of the Income-tax Act, the Appellate Tribunal may, after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit. The power of the Tribunal in dealing with appeals is thus expressed in the widest

Aashiyana Infratec P.Ltd, Noida vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, all the four appeals are allowed

ITA 340/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Jain, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Javed Akhtar, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

same ? 5. Under Section 254 of the Income-tax Act, the Appellate Tribunal may, after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit. The power of the Tribunal in dealing with appeals is thus expressed in the widest

Aashiyana Infratec P.Ltd, Noida vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, all the four appeals are allowed

ITA 339/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Jain, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Javed Akhtar, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

same ? 5. Under Section 254 of the Income-tax Act, the Appellate Tribunal may, after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit. The power of the Tribunal in dealing with appeals is thus expressed in the widest

Aashiyana Infratec P.Ltd, Noida vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, all the four appeals are allowed

ITA 338/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Jain, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Javed Akhtar, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

same ? 5. Under Section 254 of the Income-tax Act, the Appellate Tribunal may, after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit. The power of the Tribunal in dealing with appeals is thus expressed in the widest

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Goldsouk International Germs and Jewellery Sez Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal for AY 2011-12 being ITA No

ITA 558/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeshwar Painuly, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu
Section 132Section 153CSection 68

pass a speaking order on the basis of addition made by the AO. Needless to add that the assessee should be granted adequate opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, this appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. 15 In the result, the Revenue’s appeal

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Goldsouk International Germs and Jewellery Sez Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal for AY 2011-12 being ITA No

ITA 557/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeshwar Painuly, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu
Section 132Section 153CSection 68

pass a speaking order on the basis of addition made by the AO. Needless to add that the assessee should be granted adequate opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, this appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. 15 In the result, the Revenue’s appeal

M/S. Genpact India, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6542/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rishpal Bedi, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)

file of Assessing Officer to reassess the issue under consideration considering the material placed on record by the assessee after giving proper opportunity of being heard. 25. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid manner for statistical purposes. 26. Now we deal with

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Genpact India, Gurgaon

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6414/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rishpal Bedi, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)

file of Assessing Officer to reassess the issue under consideration considering the material placed on record by the assessee after giving proper opportunity of being heard. 25. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid manner for statistical purposes. 26. Now we deal with

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Kanpur vs. M/S Rohit Surfactants Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 605/LKW/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Dec 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 139(1)Section 32Section 801Section 801BSection 80A

insertion of 80AC and also considered the submission of the assessee regarding reason for delay in filing of return of income without providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessing Officer as per Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules in respect of the same. 5. The Commissioner of Income

Ethix Healthcare, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Parwanoo

In the result, both on the exercise of jurisdiction u/s 147 and on merits of the case, the order of the AO as well as the ld CIT(A) is hereby set-aside and matter is decided in favour of the assessee

ITA 501/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri VivekVardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80Section 80I

passed by Ld. AO and then by Worthy CIT(A) deserves to be quashed since the same have been passed without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 6. That the appellant craves leave for any addition, deletion or amendment in the grounds of appeal on or before

Vipul Purshottamdas Thakkar, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 784/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah & Shri Rushin PatelFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 54B

your appellant’s case and in law, the Honorable CIT – Appeals-11, Ahmedabad has erred in passing order u/s 250, without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard. 2. Without prejudice to above ground, on the facts and in the circumstances of your appellant’s case and in law, the Honorable

Gouri Singla, Siliguri vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Siliguri

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 488/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.488/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Gouri Singla………….… ……….. ……..……………………....Appellant C/O Paramount Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Mangal Pandey Road, Khalpara, Siliguri- 734005. [Pan: Ajbps9966M] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Siliguri…. ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 16, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 17, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.02.2024 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 Is An Individual & Run A Proprietorship Business & Filed Return Of Income On 29.09.2013 For The Relevant Assessment Year Declaring Total Income Of Rs.7,67,610/. Thereafter, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act As Per Information Received. Accordingly, Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Was Issued. In Response To The Notices, The Assessee Has Not Furnished The Requisite Details To The Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer Noticed That The Assessee Had Taken Loan Of Rs.22,00,000/- From Various Lenders During The Assessment Year. He Also Noticed That The Assessee Had Also Cash Deposited Of Rs.5,69,000/- In Her Bank Account.

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69A

justice and fair play, remand back the issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee to present her case. We also direct the assessee to strictly comply with the notices issued

Brij Gopal Daga, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 34, Kolkata

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

ITA 1893/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 250

matter to the file of the AO for de novo assessment on this issue. Needless to say, assessee be given proper and adequate opportunity of being heard and the AO is AYs 2014-15 & 2015-16 directed to pass a speaking order. With the above observations, the appeal

Brij Gopal Daga, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 34, Kolkata

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

ITA 1892/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 250

matter to the file of the AO for de novo assessment on this issue. Needless to say, assessee be given proper and adequate opportunity of being heard and the AO is AYs 2014-15 & 2015-16 directed to pass a speaking order. With the above observations, the appeal

Pampana Gouda, Tq Manvi, Dist Raichur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Raichur

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

ITA 1715/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri. Pampana Gouda, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Lic Complex, Raichur Road, Ward – 1, Manvi, Raichur. Raichur – 584 123. Pan : Awtpg 3495 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Rajkumar Hanchal, Ca. Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 16.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.12.2024 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahuthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By Cit(A) Vide Order Din Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1066844051(1) Dated 19.07.2024, Not Condoning The Delay Of 119 Days. The Sole Reason For Not Condoning The Delay By The Cit(A) Is That The Assessee Has Not Explained The Reasons For Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Cit(A), As Assessee Is Bound To Explain The Delay After The Last Date Of Limitation. The Cit(A) Has Also Decided The Issue On Merits & Confirmed The Addition Made By The Ao Vide Assessment Order Dated 14.03.2023 Passed Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). Page 2 Of 4

For Appellant: Shri. Rajkumar Hanchal, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 144

justice and equity, we restore the matter to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Needless to mention assessee be granted sufficient opportunity of being heard and assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment in the matter, for speedy disposal