← 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

Gazole L S Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd., Malda vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Malda

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 107/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.107/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Gazole L S Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd.……....Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocate Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Aaaag4743K] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Malda…..…. ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Susanta Saha, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04, 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 14.12.2023 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. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee An Agricultural Marketing Cooperative Society & Engaged In Purchase & Sale Of Agricultural Implements. The Primary Consumers Of The Society Are Members Of Large Number Of Primary Agricultural Society & Their Members In Locality. The Society Claimed Deduction U/S 80P(2)(A)(Iii) & (Iv) Of The Act Contending That The Profit From Its Activity Was Eligible For The Deduction. The Source Of The Cash Deposits In Question Was Attributed To Collections From Sales/Debtors During The Demonetization Period. However, Due To Large Size Of Documents & Vouchers Related To

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

relevant documents to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to re-examine the issue de novo after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee to present its case and submit necessary documents, cash book, ledger account etc. which were not furnished at the time

Rams Trading Corporation, Erode vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Erode

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

ITA 1679/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1679/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2017-18 Rams Trading Corporation Income Tax Officer, No.166, Jinnah Street, Ward-1(1) , Erode-638001 Erode. [Pan: Aaefr6671C] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri S.Sridhar, Advocate(Erode), अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06 .12.2024

For Appellant: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

upon this main point are therefore adjudicated together. The appellant has contested the merits of the addition as well as contended that reasonable opportunity of being heard has not been given. 3.0 The Ld. Counsel for the assessee explained that the Ld.AO had noted that the assessee had deposited ... passing a speaking order. To the extent the order of lower authorities on this issue stands set aside. The Ld. AO shall give opportunities of being heard to the assesse and it shall be bounden upon the assesse to comply with the notices issued

Hanubhai Devabhai Rathod, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anand

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

ITA 669/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 668 & 669/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18) बनाम/ Hanubhai Devabhai Income Tax Officer Rathod Ward 1, Anand Vs. C/O. M S Chhajed & Co. Ca, “Kamal Shanti” Nr. Sardar Patel Statue, Ahmedabad - 380014 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abrpr2912C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Mahesh Chhajed, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 05/12/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’), Dated 09.03.2024 For The Assessment Years 2016- 17 & 2017-18 Respectively. As The Facts Of The Cases Are Identical, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of Vide This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Chhajed, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 69Section 69A

interest of justice, we, therefore, set aside the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to allow another opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to make necessary compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) and not to seek any adjournment

Hanubhai Devabhai Rathod, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anand

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

ITA 668/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 668 & 669/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18) बनाम/ Hanubhai Devabhai Income Tax Officer Rathod Ward 1, Anand Vs. C/O. M S Chhajed & Co. Ca, “Kamal Shanti” Nr. Sardar Patel Statue, Ahmedabad - 380014 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abrpr2912C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Mahesh Chhajed, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 05/12/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’), Dated 09.03.2024 For The Assessment Years 2016- 17 & 2017-18 Respectively. As The Facts Of The Cases Are Identical, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of Vide This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Chhajed, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 69Section 69A

interest of justice, we, therefore, set aside the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to allow another opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to make necessary compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) and not to seek any adjournment

Vijaybhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(3), Vadodara

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

ITA 1104/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1104/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बनाम/ Vijaybhai Patel Income Tax Officer 1-25 Station Vistar, At & Ward 1(3)(3), Vadodara Vs. Po: Bhilapur, Ta: Dabhoi, Vadodara - 391107 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Blapp8447A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Hardik Vora, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. Dr 27/11/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 05/12/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’), Dated 26.03.2024 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Did Not File His Return Of Income For A.Y.2012-13. The Ao Had Received An Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposit Of Rs.91,71,500/- In His Bank Account With Bank Of Baroda. Therefore, The Case Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). In The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ao Was Not Satisfied With The Explanation Of The Assessee Regarding The Source Of This Cash Deposit. Therefore, An Addition Of Rs.91,71,500/- Was Made In

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

assessee. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 8. The disposal of appeal by NFAC without allowing any opportunity of being heard to the assessee is a matter of serious concern. The gross violation of natural justice not only renders the order of the CIT(A) indefensible ... along with a copy of the order of CIT(A) passed in this case] with a direction to enquire as to why no opportunity of being heard was allowed to the assessee in this case. He may also be requested to issue proper guidelines to all the appellate authorities