“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

Atam Textiles Private Limited, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward III(2), Ldh, Ludhiana

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed without giving any reasons

ITA 766/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Kaushal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 253Section 69A

appeal before us : 1. No notice was served on the assessee. Ex-Parte order was passed by CIT (A), without giving any opportunity of being heard; thus defying the law of natural Justice. Therefore, the assessee was not having sufficient opportunity to plead his case and ITA 766/CHD/2024 ... substantiate his contentions. Order so passed, dismissing all grounds of appeal of assessee, 'without serving him any notice, thus not giving him the opportunity of being heard, is illegal and void. 2. That without prejudice to above, the additional evidence may kindly be admitted under Rule 29 of Income

Amjay Medimax India Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the levy of costs as specified above

ITA 731/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.731/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Amjay Medimax India The Dy.Cit बनाम/ Pvt.Ltd. Circle-1(1)(1) V/S. 4Th Floor, Medi Max House Ahmedabad - 380 015 Opp.Karnavati Hospital Ellisbridge Ahmedabad – 380 006 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabca 8241 R (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Aseem Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23/02/2024, Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) Arose Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Amjay Medimax India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Dcit Asst. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 37(1)Section 68

Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in passing an Ex Parte Order dismissing the appeal without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant Hence the same being against the principles of natural justice and equity requires to be quashed. 2. The Learned Commissioner ... pertinent to note that the principles of natural justice operate both ways—while the revenue authorities are required to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard, the taxpayer is equally obligated to co-operate with the authorities and utilize the opportunities extended. In the present Amjay Medimax India Pvt.Ltd

Vidyarthi Vikas Mandal, Sangli vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 2091/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2024

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2090 & 2091/Pun/2024

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar Singh

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

directly relevant to the present proceedings. However, the assessee has failed to comply despite giving sufficient opportunities as discussed above including an opportunity of being heard. 3.1 Thus, the assessee has failed to furnish the details called for under the provisions of section 12AB(1)(b)(i) of the Income

Vidyarthi Vikas Mandal, Sangli vs. CIT (E), Pune

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

ITA 2090/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2024

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2090 & 2091/Pun/2024

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar Singh

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

Girjan Co-Op Marketing Society Limited, Vizianagaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vizianagaram

In the result, four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 274/VIZ/2024[2016-17S]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri S. Balakrishnan

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 10Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

assessee has explained the reasons for filing the appeal beyond the prescribed time limit. Learned AR further submitted that without affording property opportunity of being heard to the assessee, learned CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal arbitrarily which is unsustainable in law. Therefore, it was pleaded that the matter

Girjan Co-Op Marketing Society Limited, Vizianagaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vizianagaram

In the result, four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 273/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri S. Balakrishnan

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 10Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

Girijan Co-Op Marketing Society Limited, Vizianagaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vizianagaram

In the result, four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 272/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri S. Balakrishnan

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 10Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

Girijan Co-Op Markrting Society Limited, Vizianagaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vizianagaram

In the result, four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 271/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri S. Balakrishnan

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 10Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

Shyamal Kumar Ghosh, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 33(5), Kolkata

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

ITA 1813/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1813/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shyamal Kumar Ghosh……………………………………………….…..……Appellant 40, Weston Street, 2Nd Floor, Bowbazar, Kolkata – 700013. [Pan: Adtpg3720F] Vs. Ito, Ward-33(5), Kolkata............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhishek Bansal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Akhil Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 09, 2024 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.12.2023 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. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Raised Issue Of A Delay Of 198 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal. The Assessee Has Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Delay Citing Valid & Proper Reasons. After Considering The Averments Made In The Application, We Condone The Delay. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 By Declaring Gross Total Income Of Rs.14,15,352/- & Total Income Of Rs.12,49,520/- After Deduction Under Chapter Vi-A Of The Act. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued. In Response, The Assessee Submitted Profit & Loss A/C, Balance Sheet And

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 68Section 69A

matter may be sent to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to reexamine the issues after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. The ld. DR, on the other hand, stated that sufficient opportunities were given to the assessee, however, the assessee ... remand the whole issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to reexamine the issue after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee to furnish relevant documents in order to substantiate his claim. The assessee is also directed to comply with the notices

Puthenvelikkara Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd No.3445, Ernakulam vs. ITO, Ward-3, Aluva

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay application is dismissed

ITA 414/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR

restoration of the matter to the file 2 ITA No.414& SA 67/Coch/2024. Puthenvelikkara SC.B Limited. of CIT(A) for granting an opportunity of being heard on merits of the case. 4. After considering the rival submissions, we observe that the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee

National Radio Electronics, Kannur vs. ITO, Circle-1, Kannur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 250/COCH/2024[AY 2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 36

file of the NFAC for fresh de novo disposal of the appeal on merits in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 3 ITA No.250/Coch/2024. M/s.National Radio Electronics. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed. Order pronounced

Kunnath Paper Mills (P) Ltd, Thrissur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Thrissur

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

ITA 155/COCH/2024[AY 2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessmentyear:2011-12 Kunnath Paper Mills (P) Ltd. 6/525, Meenkara Dam (Po) Muthalamada Ito Vs. Palakkad 678 507 Ward-1(2) Kerala Thrissur Pan No : Aaack9941P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Respondent By : Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2024 O R D E R Perprakash Chand Yadav: Present Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising From The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Dated 3.1.2024 & Relates To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Six Grounds Of Appeal. However, The Solitary Issue Which Is To Be Decided Is Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Correct In Law In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.54 Lakhs U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) To The Income Of The Assessee.

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 250(6)Section 68

assessee. 3. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee craved that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard and therefore, an opportunity of being heard may kindly be given to the assessee. Kunnath Paper Mills (P) Ltd., Palakkad Page

Chittattukara Panchayat Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Ernakulam vs. The ITO Ward 1 & Tps, Aluva

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay application is dismissed

ITA 629/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR

Section 143(3)Section 80P

remanded to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo disposal of the appeal in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 9. Since we have disposed of the quantum appeal, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed as rendered infructuous

Lauly Abraham, Idukki vs. The ITO Ward International Taxation, Kochi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay application is dismissed

ITA 622/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm & Sa No. 210/Coch/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Lauly Abraham Johnson Villa, Neyyassery Thodupuzha, Idukki 685585 [Pan: Aqcpa7534M] .......... Appellant Vs. The Income Tax Officer (International Taxation) C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road Kochi 682018 .......... Respondent Appellant By: Ms. Krishna K., Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 21.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.12.2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Krishna K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 148

remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo disposal in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. Since the quantum appeal of the assessee is disposed of, the stay application becomes infructuous, hence dismissed

Ayalattu Chandrasekharan Pillay Vijayakumar, Alappuzha vs. DCIT International Taxation, Trivandrum

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

ITA 170/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Ms.Lekshmi N, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR

Section 143(3)Section 69B

Accordingly, the matter is set aside to the file of the AO for de novo assessment in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 09th

Mentor Foundation, Jaipur vs. CIT(Exemption), Jaipur

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

ITA 787/JPR/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Dec 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri K.L. Moolchandani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 2(15)

passed an ex-parte order for want of the required reply/ explanation from the assessee trust. However, the assessee was not provided adequate opportunity of being heard by the ld. CIT(E) and the assessee should be given one more chance to contest the case before ... assessee as the ld. CIT(E) has elaborately discussed the issue in his order by passing an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee giving therein following narration. ‘’…….Since it is a limitation matter, therefore, the case is decided on the basis of material

Pubbaja Bhumi Vipassana Trust, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

Appeal is disposed of for statistical purposes, and

ITA 785/JPR/2024[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Dec 2024AY 2024-2025

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vedant Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 80G

aside the impugned order, remand the matter to the files of Learned CIT(E), who shall decide the application afresh after providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Order pronounced in the open court on 09/12/2024. ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ ¼jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ½ (NARINDER KUMAR) (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI

Krishan Kumar, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Jaipur

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

ITA 1189/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Nfac, The Order Of Assessment Dated 15.12.2019, Passed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(5), Jaipur [

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary (JCIT)

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 69A

affidavit of the assessee. 12 Krishan Kumar vs. ITO Thus, we find that before passing the impugned order, appellant was not given an opportunity of being heard, and that principles of nature justices were violated. 8. Ld. AR of the assessee has also argued that the report of the Inspector ... remand the matter to the files of Assessing Officer to examine the evidence and the contentions of the assessee afresh after providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, and while setting aside the impugned order

Star Developers, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward - 1(4), Jaipur

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

ITA 1138/JPR/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Dec 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary Addl.CIT

Section 143(1)Section 249(3)Section 250

view that lis between the parties has to be decided on merits so that nobody’s rights could be scuttled down without providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus the delay so made before the ld. Addl. CIT(A), Patna is condoned and the the matter is restored

M/S Evergreen Infra Structures, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-41(4)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5405/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval SalotFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi

Section 133ASection 140ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 250

Rs.1,00,000/- from the work-in-progress account of the appellant. 4. The learned assessing officer erred in not granting proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 5. The learned assessing officer erred in making the same addition of Rs.2,40,00,000/- twice in the appellants returned ... thereafter, adjudicate the grounds raised in appeal by the Appellant before the CIT(A) as per law after granting the Appellant reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Appellant is directed to file all documents/details in support of the grounds raised before CIT(A). It is clarified that in case