← 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

Ujwal Fine Homes, Pune vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -3, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 491/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.491/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ujwal Fine Homes, V The Principal High Bliss, S No.23, Dhayri S Commissioner Of Income Narhe Road, Pune – 411041. Tax, Pune -3, Pune. Pan; Aabfu7293E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri C.H.Naniwadekar – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-3, Pune U/Sec.263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 09.02.2024 For The A.Y.2018- 19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. In Issuing The Notice U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 For Ay 2018-19

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 171Section 263

officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making an enquiry pass an order modifying the assessment made by the assessing officer or cancelling the assessment and directing fresh ... pass a fresh assessment order after verifying and examining all the relevant facts of the case, legal position and giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.”Unquote. 4.11 The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M.R Apparels (P.) Ltd. Vs. Pr.CIT [2024] 168 taxmann.com

Tarachand Pusaramji Mahakalkar, Pune vs. ITO Ward 5(1), Nagpur

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

ITA 90/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 250Section 69

documentary evidences filed by the assessee. 5. Whether on the facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not providing sufficient opportunity of being heard, thereby breaching principles of natural justice. 6. The Assessee craves to add, alter, vary, omit, amend or delete one or more ... filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) by adducing proper evidence. Needless to say that the learned CIT(A) shall provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open Court

Garden City, Amrawati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Amrawati, Amravati

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 53/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Ms. Alfia RozieFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 144Section 251

Jurisdictional Assessing Officer 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 3 Garden City seek adjournment without there being a justified reason. Accordingly

Vinayak Jagannath Ragit, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Nagpur

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

ITA 434/NAG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 148Section 50C

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

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

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

ITA 220/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

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 Ltd. 9. In the result

Purnand Ramchandra Mishra, Nagpur vs. DCIT, Central Circle 2(2), Nagpur

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

ITA 281/NAG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri K.M. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(9)(D)Section 250Section 69A

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

Reshma, Nalgonda vs. ITO., Ward-1, Nalgonda

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for sta"s"cal purposes

ITA 982/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha .G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Mohd Afzal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271A

merits, without seeking any adjournments and the learned AO to take a fresh look at the ma"er, a"er affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds are accordingly treated as allowed for sta"s"cal purposes. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee

Peddini Ashok Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 356/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.356/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Peddini Ashok Kumar V. The Income Tax Officer- Ward-4(1) D.No. 49-36-13/1 Income Tax Office Nggo’S Colony, Akkayyapalem Pratyakshakar Bhavan Visakhapatnam – 530016 Mvp Double Road Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aqlpp3626L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

time of appeal hearing.” 7. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR submitted that Ld.CIT(A) passed exparte order without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, therefore, considering additions/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, Ld.AR pleaded that the matter may be remitted back to the file

Utpaul Pal, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 24(1), Hooghly

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

ITA 837/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 837/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Utpal Pal,…………………………………..…………Appellant 211, D.P. Mukherjee Lane, Sheoraphuly, Hooghly-712223 [Pan:Aslpp8480G] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,….Respondent Circle-24(1), Hooghly, Roopmahal, Khadina More, Station Road, Chinsurah, Hooghly-712101 Appearances By: Shri C.M. Roy, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 28, 2024 O R D E R

Section 69A

Appeals). He further submitted that the assessee is having a good case and pleaded before me to provide one more opportunity of being heard to substantiate his claim. It is an admitted fact that the assessee did not appear before the lower authorities to substantiate his claim. After considering

Response India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2071/KOL/2024[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2024AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2071/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Response India Pvt. Ltd.……………........………………....Appellant 103, Tivoli Court, 1C Ballygunge Circular Road, Ballygunge, K Kolkata – 700019. [Pan: Aaccr6178B] Vs. Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata...…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Adhikari, Jcit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 28, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 28, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.08.2024 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 Filed Its Original Return Of Income Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.3,06,250/-. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act. Subsequently, The Assessing Officer Recorded Reasons To Believe That Certain Income Has Escaped Assessment. Subsequently, Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act Was Initiated After Obtaining Requisite Approval From The Competent Authority U/S 151 Of The Act. The Assessee Through A Letter Dated 06.11.2012 Requested That The Original Return To Be Treated As Return Filed In Compliance To The Notice U/S 148. Subsequently, Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued To The Assessee. In Compliance To The

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) is directed to reconcile the discrepancy after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to furnish all necessary documents including reconciliation statement to substantiate its claim without fail

Rajasthan Shiksha Sankul Bhawan Samiti, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1013/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2024AY 2015-16
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 271Section 271(1)

grossly erred in dismissing the appeal of assessee without considering the facts of the case and without giving the proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law also Ld. A.O. grossly erred in initiating reassessment proceedings ... matter back to the file of the Jurisdictional AO for re-examination of the matter de-novo after giving the assessee a fresh opportunity of being heard. The assessee is directed to be vigilant enough this time and comply with all the notices issued by the authorities concerned without fail

Rajasthan Shiksha Sankul Bhawan Samiti, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 1012/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Vedant Agarwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Ld
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 250

grossly erred in dismissing the appeal of assessee without considering the facts of the case and without giving the proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law also Ld. A.O. grossly erred in initiating reassessment proceedings ... matter back to the file of the Jurisdictional AO for re-examination of the matter de-novo after giving the assessee a fresh opportunity of being heard. The assessee is directed to be vigilant enough this time and comply with all the notices issued by the authorities concerned without fail

Rajasthan Shiksha Sankul Bhawan Samiti, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 1011/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Vedant Agarwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Ld
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 250

grossly erred in dismissing the appeal of assessee without considering the facts of the case and without giving the proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law also Ld. A.O. grossly erred in initiating reassessment proceedings ... matter back to the file of the Jurisdictional AO for re-examination of the matter de-novo after giving the assessee a fresh opportunity of being heard. The assessee is directed to be vigilant enough this time and comply with all the notices issued by the authorities concerned without fail

Rajasthan Shiksha Sankul Bhawan Samiti, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 1010/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Vedant Agarwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Ld
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 250

grossly erred in dismissing the appeal of assessee without considering the facts of the case and without giving the proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law also Ld. A.O. grossly erred in initiating reassessment proceedings ... matter back to the file of the Jurisdictional AO for re-examination of the matter de-novo after giving the assessee a fresh opportunity of being heard. The assessee is directed to be vigilant enough this time and comply with all the notices issued by the authorities concerned without fail

Sri. Basaveshwara Patthina Souharda Shakari Niyamitha, Kothagudem vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Koppal

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

ITA 2022/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sri Siddhesh Nagraj Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

card, PAN card and other KYC details before the AO during the remand proceedings. Needless to say, that the AO will afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court

Muddayya Amarayya Hiremath, Yadgir vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Yadgir

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1996/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Tarun Kothari, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 144Section 148Section 194ASection 194CSection 271B

that would be essential and required for substantiating his case and for proper adjudication by the revenue authorities. Needless to say that reasonable opportunity of being heard be given to the assessee. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the proceedings and in case of further default, the assessee shall

Muddayya Amarayya Hiremath, Yadgir vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Yadgir

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1995/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Tarun Kothari, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 144Section 148Section 194ASection 194CSection 271B

that would be essential and required for substantiating his case and for proper adjudication by the revenue authorities. Needless to say that reasonable opportunity of being heard be given to the assessee. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the proceedings and in case of further default, the assessee shall

Muddayya Amarayya Hiremath, Yadgir vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Yadgir

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1994/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Tarun Kothari, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 144Section 148Section 194ASection 194CSection 271B

that would be essential and required for substantiating his case and for proper adjudication by the revenue authorities. Needless to say that reasonable opportunity of being heard be given to the assessee. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the proceedings and in case of further default, the assessee shall

Muddayya Aarayya Hiremath, Yadgir vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Yadgir

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1993/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Tarun Kothari, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 144Section 148Section 194ASection 194CSection 271B

that would be essential and required for substantiating his case and for proper adjudication by the revenue authorities. Needless to say that reasonable opportunity of being heard be given to the assessee. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the proceedings and in case of further default, the assessee shall

Greens Natures Fresh Produce Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1781/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)

that would be essential and required for substantiating his case and for proper adjudication by the revenue authorities. Needless to say that reasonable opportunity of being heard be given to the assessee. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the proceedings and in case of further default, the assessee shall