“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

Rajashthani Rawal Brahman Samaj Vikas Mandal, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Income Tax Dept, Mumbai

ITA 3416/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Rajasthani Rawal Brahman Samaj Commissioner Of Income Tax Vikas Mandal (Appeals) Income Tax Dept. Nfac 17, Om Shree Sai Darshan, Kailash Income Tax Officer, Circle 3, Vs. Nagar, Koper Cross Road, Opp. Kalyan, Maharashtra – 421306. Sakharam Complex, Dombivali (W), Thane – 421202. Pan/Gir No. Aacar 9376 B (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : None : Shri. R. R. Makwana Sr. Dr. Respondent By Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi (‘Ld.Cit(A) For Short),National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2017-18. 2. As There Was No Representation On Behalf Of The Assessee, We Hereby Dispose Of This Appeal By Hearing The Learned Departmental Representative ('Ld.Dr' For Short) & On Perusal Of The Materials Available On Record. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: None

Section 144Section 250Section 69A

facts in passing an ex parte order. Your appellant submits that it was prevented by sufficient reasons and proper opportunity of being heard was not granted. 2. The Learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 14,26,023/- as unexplained cash within the meaning of section

Windston Spring Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 8 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3204/MUM/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Hakani, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Sawant, Ld. SR. A.R

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 250

order and consequently remanding the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee as well as by taking into consideration the additional evidence/any other document/material which the Assessee has produced before

Paras Jain HUF, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 43(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3436/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumarparas Jain Huf, Vs. Ito, Ward 43 (1), 158, Sandesh Vihar, Pitampura, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 034. (Pan : Aanhp8779E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Saurav Rohatgi, Ca Shri Rajat Mittal, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2024 Date Of Order : 27.11.2024 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) (Hereinafter Referred To 'Ld. Cit (A)' Dated 25.03.2024 For Ay 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Paras Jain (Huf), The Assessee Has Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Declaring Income Of Rs.4,35,910. The Assessee Was The Proprietor Of M/S. Aaradhya Jewellers & Deals In The Trading Of Gold & Diamond Jewellery. The Return Of Income Was Processed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) & Thereafter, The Case

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Rohatgi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

issue on merit and prayed that this issue may be remitted back to the ld. CIT(A) with the prayer to give an opportunity of being heard to the 3 assessee. He submitted that there are reasons for assessee for not appearing before the first appellate authority ... advance from customers, and considering the additions sustained by the ld. CIT (A), in our considered view, assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard on merit. Therefore, we direct ld. CIT (A) to give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue

Prabhu Dayal Eye Institute and Research Institute, Bhiwani, Haryana vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3175/DEL/2024[Prabhu Dayal Eye Institute And Research Institute]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2024

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rajinder Kaur, CIT DR

Section 10ASection 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 253(3)Section 80G

issue back to the file of ld. CIT (E) to consider the submissions for grant of registration as per law after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 11. Since, the facts in ITA No.3175/Del/2024

Prabhu Dayal Eye Institute and Research Institute, Bhiwani, Haryana vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3174/DEL/2024[Prabhu Dayal Eye Institute And Research Institute]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2024

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rajinder Kaur, CIT DR

Section 10ASection 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 253(3)Section 80G

R.K.Super Edible Oils Private Limited, Ramesh Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

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

ITA 2550/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S. SIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Jagdish Azmani, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 68

back the issues in dispute to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) in order to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4 6. Ld. DR for the Revenue relied upon the orders of the authorities below and objected to the submissions ... with the directions to decide the same afresh on merits, by passing a speaking order, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also direct assessee to make proper submissions and appear before the ld.CIT (A) on the date of hearing and cooperate with the tax authorities

ITO, Ward- 16(4), New Delhi vs. Mnm Trading Solution Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3273/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to submit necessary documentary evidence to substantiate its claim during assessment proceedings even after providing sufficient opportunity of being heard ? 2. Whether in facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is legally justified in deleting addition

Society for Education and Research, Jagadhri, Yamunangar vs. DCIT(E) (Circle-2), Chandigarh

In the result, ground no. 2 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 272/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

That the authorities below have erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal without providing adequate opportunity of being heard. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or to substitute the above ground(s) of appeal either before or at the time of hearing

Ramesh Kumar, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Panchkula

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

ITA 745/CHANDI/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Nov 2024AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 250

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. 5. That the appellant craves leave for any addition, deletion or amendment in the grounds of appeal on or before

Sohil Patel, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(3), Vadodara

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

ITA 652/AHD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumarshri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Samir Vora, A.R on behalf of Shri S.N Divatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. P Srivastava, Sr. DR

Section 250

interest of justice, the matter is remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication of the issue afresh after granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall comply with the notices issued by the authorities from time to time. 4. In the result, the appeal

Kalash Trade Chem Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1510/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumarshri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri B.P Srivastava, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri B.P Srivastava, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144BSection 144B(1)Section 147Section 148Section 210Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

requiring to file reply on or before 26/03/2022 i.e. within 1 day, is against the provision of natural justice and without giving proper opportunity of being heard as defined u/s 144B(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and as such the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B

Technodot Engineers Pvt. Ltd, Gandhinagar vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 93/AHD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokari.T(Ss).A. Nos.147&148/Ahd/2019 (A.Ys.: 2005-06 & 2006-07) Smt. Neelu Sanjay Gupta, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of L/H. Of Late Shri Sanjay Gupta Income Tax, B-202, Dhananjay Tower, Central Circle-2(2), Anand Nagar Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380015 [Pan No.Adypg0351K] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) I.T(Ss).A. Nos.21 To 23/Ahd/2020 & 15/Ahd/2022 & Ita No. 93/Ahd/2020) (A.Ys.: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2006-07 & 2010-11 To 2011-12) M/S. Technodot Engineers Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of C/O. Cambay Hotel & Resorts, Income Tax, Plot No. 22, 23, 24 Gidc, Central Circle-2(2), Sector-25, Gandhinagar-382010 Ahmedabad [Pan No.Aabct5392A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & Shri ParimalFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT-DR & Shri Rignesh K

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

assessing officer/Department to complete the assessment. It is not a case of the assessee that there was any denial of justice or opportunity of being heard not having been granted to the assessee or his group concerns. However, despite a large number of opportunities, the assessee consistently kept on evading

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Auranagbad., Aurangabad vs. Shreehari Associates Pvt Ltd, Aurangabad

The appeals of the REVENUE are ALLOWED

ITA 410/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr CH Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ajaykumar Kesari & Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 253(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

provides that, no order imposing a penalty shall be made unless the assessee has been heard or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The requirement of section 274 of the Act since shown complied and remained undisputed, and the penal provisions being a civil liability calling

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Shreehari Associates Pvt Ltd, Aurangabad

The appeals of the REVENUE are ALLOWED

ITA 408/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr CH Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ajaykumar Kesari & Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 253(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Shreehari Associates Private Limited, Aurangabad

The appeals of the REVENUE are ALLOWED

ITA 407/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr CH Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ajaykumar Kesari & Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 253(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

Sangamner Vipassana Samiti, Sangamner vs. CIT(E), Pune

Accordingly, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1573/PUN/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2024AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

please be set aside to the file of the ld. CIT(Ex.) to adjudicate the same on merits after affording one more opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 3] The appellant craves leave to add/ alter/ amend any of the grounds of appeal.” 5. Briefly stated, the facts ... matter may be set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) to adjudicate the same on merits after affording one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the order of Ld. CIT(E) and submitted that the assessee

Sangamner Vipassana Samiti, Sangamner vs. CIT(E), Pune

Accordingly, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1572/PUN/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2024AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

Shri Sultan Abdul Lalani, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 23(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, in view of judgment in ITA No

ITA 5149/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Mathuria, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas P., Sr. A.R

Section 147Section 250Section 44ASection 68

impugned order and consequently remand the case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. Thus, the case is remanded accordingly. 7. Resultantly, the appeal i.e. ITA No.5147/2024 under consideration is allowed for statistical purposes

Shri Sultan Abdul Lalani, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward, 23(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, in view of judgment in ITA No

ITA 5148/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Mathuria, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas P., Sr. A.R

Section 147Section 250Section 44ASection 68

Shri Sultan Abdul Lalani, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward, 23(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, in view of judgment in ITA No

ITA 5147/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Mathuria, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas P., Sr. A.R

Section 147Section 250Section 44ASection 68