← 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

Sri. Ravishankar Bangalore Jayaram, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1653/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Shivakumar .G, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

afresh without being Page 4 of 4 influenced by the quantum appeal order, on merits and in accordance with law, after granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open

Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust, Bengaluru vs. DCIT-(Exemptions) Circle-1, Bangalore

ITA 1266/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80G(5)(vi)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE “A” BENCHES, BANGALORE BEFORE MRS. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR

Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust, Bengaluru vs. DCIT-(Exemptions) Circle-1, Bangalore

ITA 1265/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80G(5)(vi)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE “A” BENCHES, BANGALORE BEFORE MRS. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR

Trishala Developers, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 1(4), Kalyan

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

ITA 5299/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon’Ble & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Lavanya Rajpurohit, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Raj Singh Meel, Sr. D/R

after affording fa between the parties is decided on merits after affording fair between the parties is decided on merits after affording fa opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, considering the opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, considering the opportunity of being heard to the assessee

Twinkle Star Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4169/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ms Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2012-13 Twinkle Star Assistant Director Of Cooperative Housing Income Tax Society Limited Cpc, Ghatla Village, Bengaluru- 560500. Vs. Chembur Maharashtra- 400071. Pan: Aaaat1535A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. P. Jayaraman
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Twinkle Star Cooperative Housing Society Limited; A. Y.2012-13 Income Tax Act by affording the appellant the opportunity of being heard. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced on 19.11.2024 as per Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules 1963. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL

Twinkle Star Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4168/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ms Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2013-14 Twinkle Star Assistant Director Of Cooperative Housing Income Tax Society Limited Cpc, Ghatla Village, Bengaluru- 560500. Vs. Chembur Maharashtra- 400071. Pan: Aaaat1535A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. P. Jayaraman
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Cooperative Housing Society Limited; A. Y.2012-13 made by assessee u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act by affording the appellant the opportunity of being heard. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced on 19.11.2024 as per Rule 34(4) of the Income

Twinkle Star Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4166/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ms Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2014-15 Twinkle Star Assistant Director Of Cooperative Housing Income Tax Society Limited Cpc, Ghatla Village, Bengaluru- 560500. Vs. Chembur Maharashtra- 400071. Pan: Aaaat1535A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. P. Jayaraman
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Y.2012-13 consider the claim of deductions made by assessee u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act by affording the appellant the opportunity of being heard. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced on 19.11.2024 as per Rule 34(4) of the Income

Gulraj Hotels Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy Comm of Income Tax-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the above appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1974/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2018-19 Gulraj Hotels Private Limited Dy. Commissioner Of 24, Dheeraj Heritage, 3Rd Floor, Income Tax 4(2)(1), S.V. Road, Off. Milan Subway, Vs. Room No. 642,Aayakar Santacruz(W), Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400054 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaccg7571P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Bhangepatil P. Ramesh, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2024 O R D E R Per : Prabhash Shankar:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil P. Ramesh, Sr.AR
Section 143(3)Section 37

appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for a thorough and compliant adjudication process. The ld. CIT(A) shall give proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with principles of natural justice in the set aside remand proceedings for de novo adjudication of the appeal

Vinod Kumar Garg, Uttar Pradesh, India vs. ITO Ward 2(2)(5), Ghaziabad

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3880/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumara.Yr. : 2012-13 Vinod Kumar Garg, Vs. Ito, Ward 2(2)(5), Iib, 85A, Nehru Nagar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad – 201001 Uttar Pradesh (Pan: Acepg1571C) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, Adv., Ms. RidhiFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147

issues in dispute are remitted back to the file of the AO. The AO shall pass the order, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. 6. In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 19/11/2024

Godwin Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Meerut vs. ACIT (Central Circle), Meerut

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

ITA 1609/DEL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

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 assessee. He submitted that there are reasons for assessee for not appearing before the first appellate authority. 3. On the other ... business FDR 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 on merit

Veena Rani (Legal Heir of Late Sh. Mahender Pal Narang), Fatehabad vs. Pr, CIT, Rohtak

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1504/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumara.Yr. : 2018-19 Veena Rani, Vs. Principal Commissioner (Legal Heir Of Late Sh. Of Income Tax, Mahender Pal Narang), Rohtak, House No. 221, Ward No. 9, Aayakar Bhawan, Shiv Chowk, Near Op. Mansarover Park, Gurdwara, Faridabad, Rohtak, Haryana-124001 Haryana-125050 (Pan: Alzpr5949K) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. & Sh. AnilFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Pandey, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28

relevant before the AO at the time of assessment proceedings in consequence to this order. The AO shall allow the assessee, adequate & reasonable opportunity of being heard & make relevant submissions. It may be ensured that assessment order is passed within the prescribed time limit as per Income

Vikas Sharma, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, Circle-55(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1464/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Ms. Vimal Kumarvikas Sharma Acit Vs. Prop. M/S. Pandit Homes, Circle – 55(1), M/S. Pandit Cements & New Delhi M/S. Shri Bankey Bihari Builders & Developers, 15/103, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad – 201 012 Pan No. Avjps 8784 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate & Shri Tarun Chanana, Advocate Revenue By Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2024

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 80C

file of learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) is directed to pass a speaking order after given the assessee an opportunity of being heard. 10. In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 19.11.2024 (VIMAL KUMAR) (SHAMIM

Ashok Kumar, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT, Faridabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 500/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Ms. Vimal Kumarashok Kumar Pr. Cit Vs. House No.77, Sector – 22, Faridabad, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 015 Haryana – 122 001 Pan No. Aoapk 9635 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri K. Sampath, Adv. & Shri V. Rajkumar, Adv. Revenue By Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2024

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)Section 44Section 44ASection 68

discussed in Para 5 above. The AO is directed to make a judicious and logical order as per law after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee.” 5. Against the above order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused

Shree Kalol Sthanakvasi Jain Mitra Mandal, Ahmedabad vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 947/AHD/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Nov 2024

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Vinit N. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 2(15)

view of the above observations, the matter is restored to the file of CIT (Exemptions), for de-novo consideration, after giving due opportunity of being heard and with the direction not to disentitle the assessee for grant of registration only on the grounds as mentioned in its order for Shree

Mayur Balasaheb Shinde, Pune vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Pune

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

ITA 1504/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1504/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mayur Balasaheb Shinde, V The Income Tax Officer, 1, Anil Apartment, Baner S Ward-2(1), Pune. Residency, Baner Road, Near Sakal Nagar, Aunch, Ganeshkind, Pune – 411007. Pan: Drbps7371R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sarang Gudhate – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Dr Date Of Hearing 13/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/11/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 31.10.2023 For A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld Assessing Officer Is Erred In Considering The Cash Deposited Of Rs.10,46,000/- As Unexplained Money U/S 69A R.W.S 115Bbe. 2. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld Assessing Officer Is Erred In Treating Agricultural Income Of Rs.13,63,625/- As Income From Other Sources. 3. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Assessing Officer Is Erred In Making An Addition On Account Of Cash Deposited Whereas Same Is Already Considered In Net Profit & In Gross Total Income. This Addition Is Resulting As A Double Taxation. 4. The Appellant Craves The Permission To Add, Amend, Modify, Revise, Substitute, Delete Or Alter Any/All Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal If Deemed Necessary At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.” Submission Of Ld.Authorised Representative(Ld.Ar) : 2. Ld.Ar Submitted That There Was Delay In Filing Appeal Before The Itat. Ld.Ar Filed Copy Of Affidavit Of The Assessee Which Explains The Reasons For Delay.

Section 250Section 69A

aware about the proceedings. Therefore, assessee could not reply as assessee has not received 2 any notice. Hence, ld.AR requested for one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Submission of ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) : 3. The ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer

Vatsalya Builders and Developers Pvt Ltd, Nagpur vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Nagpur

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

ITA 9/NAG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Umang AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Benjwal

remit the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) and direct him to adjudicate the matter afresh 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

Cine Corporation of India, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Nagpur

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

ITA 405/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Shikha LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

directing him to condone the delay in filing of appeal and adjudicate the matter denovo on the merits after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. Now, coming to the merit ... delay and the learned CIT(A) is directed to accept the same sympathetically and pass order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to avoid seeking unnecessary adjournment, except in exception case and comply with the notices

M/S Vinayak Nagari Sahakari Pat. Sanstha, Bhandara vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Bhandra

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 383/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Dilip LohiyaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

proceeding with confirming the addition made by the learned assessing officer without going into the provision of law and without giving the proper opportunity of being heard in the present matter against the principles of natural justice thereby rendering the order void ab initio. 11. That interest charged U/s. 234A

Sanjay Namdeorao Shete, Amravati vs. ITO Ward - 5, Amravati

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

ITA 382/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 69

raised following grounds:– “1. The order passed by learned CIT(A) u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of I.T. Act 1961 is without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard and is in violation of principles of natural justice. Various notices noted at para 5 of appellate order are not received physically. Order ... Shete remit the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) and direct him to adjudicate the matter afresh 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

Ravindra Madanlal Khandelwal, Akola vs. DCIT/ACIT Circle, Akola

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

ITA 375/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 144BSection 68

year or subsequent years and if so, the same need not be added back. Needless to say that the assessee be provided reasonable opportunity of being heard. Thus, ground no.1, raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Ravindra Madanlal Khandelwal ITA no.375/Nag./2024 20. We now proceed