“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

Aditi Express Cargo India Private Limited, Nagpur vs. DCIT ACIT Circle -3, Nagpur

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 559/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitin Gulati a/w Pankaj KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

call in this matter and to re– 8 Aditi Express Cargo India Pvt. Ltd. adjudicate the matter on merits after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard. We make it clear that all the issues are wide open for pleadings and submissions uninfluenced by past events. The same directions shall hold

Aditi Express Cargo India Private Limited, Nagpur vs. DCIT ACIT Circle -3, Nagpur

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 558/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitin Gulati a/w Pankaj KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Aditi Express Cargo India Private Limited, Nagpur vs. DCIT ACIT Circle -3, Nagpur

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 517/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitin Gulati a/w Pankaj KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Aditi Express Cargo India Private Limited Through Its Erstwhile Director Prashant Natwarlal Lakhani, Nagpur vs. DCIT ACIT Circle-3, Nagpur

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 501/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitin Gulati a/w Pankaj KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Aditi Express Cargo India Private Limited Through Its Erstwhile Director Prashant Natwarlal Lakhani, Nagpur vs. DCIT ACIT Circle-3, Nagpur

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 500/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitin Gulati a/w Pankaj KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Aditi Express Cargo India Private Limited Through Its Erstwhile Director Prashant Natwarlal Lakhani, Nagpur vs. Dcitacit Circle-3, Nagpur

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 498/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitin Gulati a/w Pankaj KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Gajanan Manohar Khandare, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward-1, Yavatmal, Maharashtra

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

ITA 46/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68

adjudication in line with the findings given above and in accordance with law. The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is also directed to provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus, all the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, appeal filed

Vineer Glass Industries, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(5), Nagpur

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

ITA 270/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Dr. Milind BhusareFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 250

restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for denovo adjudication in accordance with law and after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We direct the assessee to file all the relevant details as required by the learned CIT(A). Thus, all the grounds

Baliraja Bahuuddeshiya Seva Sanstha, Wardha vs. CIT (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 243/NAG/2024[00-00]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 12ASection 36A

registration granted under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should not be cancelled. The assessee was also given opportunity of being heard vide the said notice. The assessee was specifically informed that in the event of failure to comply by the due date, the application shall be liable ... assessee through e-portal and email. However, the assessee neither submitted explanation to the show cause notice till date nor availed the opportunity of being heard. 3. Since, the assessee has not furnished any explanation to the discrepancies communicated to it, it is presumed that the assessee has nothing

Vaishnav Yashwant Ashtankar, Nagpur vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - Nagpur 2, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 240/NAG/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263Section 44ASection 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

Cash payment for purchase of property (iii) Source of investment in the purchase of immovable property, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after conducting necessary enquires.” Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that

Yashwant Pandurangji Ashtankar, Nagpur vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - Nagpur - 2, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 236/NAG/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

Cash payment for purchase of property (iii) Source of investment in the purchase of property after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after conducting necessary enquires.” Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that

Ravi Nair Hospitals Pv. Ltd., Nagpur vs. Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax Circle -1, Nagpur

In the result, appeals for A

ITA 232/NAG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

learned CIT(A) and direct him to adjudicate the matter afresh on merit and in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is also directed that the assessee should not seek adjournment without there being a justified reason. Accordingly, all the grounds raised

Ravi Nair Hospitals Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur vs. Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax Circle -1, Nagpur

In the result, appeals for A

ITA 231/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Parinee Growers Private Limited, Nagpur vs. Incometax Officer Ward 5(3), Nagpur

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

ITA 226/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68

M/S Unijules Life Sciences Ltd., Nagpur vs. DCIT Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur

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

ITA 223/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 7

learned CIT(A) and direct him to adjudicate the issues raised by the assessee in this appeal denovo after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 6 M/s. Unijules Life Sciences

Debabrata Paul, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 44(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2095/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2095/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Debabrata Paul……….… ……….. ……..……………………....Appellant 5, Bhupen Bose Avenue, Kolkata – 700004. [Pan: Aeypp0909B] Vs. Ito, Ward-44(1), Kolkata…. ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Gautam Chatterjee, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Susanta Saha & Shri Rajat Datta, Sr. Drs, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 05, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 06, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.08.2024 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. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2020-21 By Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,83,955/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny In Order To Verify The Agricultural Income Claimed By The Assessee. A Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act Was Issued & In Response To That Notice, The Assessee Submitted His Reply Before The Assessing Officer. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Observed That Rs.44,80,000/- Was Received By The Assessee Which Was Claimed As Exempt Income Purportedly From Sale Of The Agricultural Land. The Assessing Officer However Treated This Amount As

Section 142(1)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 50C(2)

remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to re-examine the issue afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR opposed the above plea of the assessee arguing that sufficient opportunities were provided ... remand back the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to re-examine the issue afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee to present his case and submit relevant documents. We also direct the assessee to strictly comply with the notices issued

Sekhpara Manikore Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samith Ltd., Balurghat, South Dinajpur vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), Balurghat

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2081/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2081/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sekhpara Manikore Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samith Ltd…………………………..………Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocate Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Aagas8001C] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(4), Balurghat…. ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Susanta Saha & Shri Rajat Datta, Sr. Drs, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 05, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 06, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.08.2024 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. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Non-Filer Of Income Tax Return For The Assessment Year 2018-19. It Was Found That The Assessee Made Cash Deposit Of Rs.1,57,66,762/- In The Malda District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. During The Financial Year 2017- 18. Since, The Source Of The Deposit Remained Unexplained, The Department Reopned The Case Of The Assessee By Issuing Notice U/S 148 Of The Act After Obtaining Prior Approval From The Competent Authority. In Response To The Notice U/S 148 Of The Act, The Assessee Filed Its Return

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

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 its case. We also direct the assessee to strictly comply with the notices issued

Rahul Anand, Kolkata vs. A.D.I.T., CPC, Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1497/KOL/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Supriya Pal, DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 295(1)Section 90

erred in not following the principle of natural justice. As AO rejected petition u/s 154 of the act without giving any opportunity of being heard, as petition was filed for allowing the foreign tax credit after filing relevant form 67 of the Income Tax Rules and CIT (A) erred

Avr Storage Tank Terminals Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1350/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Dipran Mukherjee, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 244ASection 250Section 32

raised by the assessee on merits by passing a speaking order de novo. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission it wants to make in support of its grounds of appeal. Accordingly, all the grounds taken

Rajarshi Bhattacharya, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 50(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1327/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

justice and fair play to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) to be done de novo after allowing an opportunity of being heard and for making proper representation before the Ld. CIT(A). Needless to say, the assessee shall not seek any unnecessary adjournments and shall file