← 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

Santur Builders Private Limited, Greater Kailash vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 77(1), TDS Ward, Delhi

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

ITA 3449/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 133ASection 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271CSection 272A(2)(g)

interest of justice and considering all the afore-stated observations, we are of the considered view that the appellant-assessee deserves reasonable opportunity of being heard and the Revenue also has to verify the sum paid/payable as EDC by the appellant/ assessee. In view thereof, without offering any comment

Satvic Movement, New Delhi vs. CIT(Exemption), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1668/DEL/2023[-]Status: HeardITAT Delhi13 Nov 2024

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No. 1669/Del/2023 Satvic Movement, Vs. Cit(Exemption), New Delhi-1100 02 Pd-4A Pitampura, New Delhi, Delhi 110088 Pan :Aactk8604J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 12ASection 80G(5)

file of the Ld. CIT(E) to decide the applications filed by the appellant afresh in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the appellant. The Appellant is also directed to submit all details/documents/clarification in support of its claim for registration under Section 12A as well

Bhupendra Shantilal Shah, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1)(Previously ITO, Ward-1(1)(3)), Vadodara

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

ITA 733/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.733/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Bhupendra Shantilal Shah The Dy.Cit बनाम/ 1, Sudev Duplex Circle-1(1)(1) V/S. B/H. Shryash High School [Previously Ito Ward-1(1)(3)] Manjalpur Vadodara Baroda - 390 002 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aepps 1425 Q अपीलाथ&/ (Appellant) '( यथ&/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hemant Suthar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/11/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Suthar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has grossly erred in law and in facts in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. The appeal of the appellant may kindly be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) and may please ... directed to afford reasonable opportunity of being heard. 2. The Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of the Ld. A.O. in making an addition of Rs.96,25,414/- holding that the amount deposited in the bank

Prashant Bharatkumar Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1389/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Satish Solanki, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr DR
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69

erred in dismissing the appeal filed before him ex-parte without granting proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by not appreciating the fact that the AO has arbitrarily made addition of Rs. 1,35,28,150/- u/s.69 ... justice, we feel it is a fit case to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to grant an opportunity of being heard. The assessee shall not misuse the opportunity given by the Tribunal to represent his case before the ld. CIT(A) and shall comply

Inox India Limited, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(2) Now Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2000-2001 and other years before us, on the above two issues which were argued before us

ITA 524/AHD/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Waghe Prasad Rao, Sr. DR
Section 251Section 251(2)Section 801A(9)Section 801HSection 80H

lease rent income. 10. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in disallowing deduction u/s 80HHC without granting proper opportunity of being heard. 11. Your appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds ... lease rent income. 10. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in disallowing deduction u/s 80HHC without granting proper opportunity of being heard. 11. Your appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds

Inox India Limited, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(2) Now Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2000-2001 and other years before us, on the above two issues which were argued before us

ITA 523/AHD/2023[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Waghe Prasad Rao, Sr. DR
Section 251Section 251(2)Section 801A(9)Section 801HSection 80H

lease rent income. 10. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in disallowing deduction u/s 80HHC without granting proper opportunity of being heard. 11. Your appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds ... lease rent income. 10. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in disallowing deduction u/s 80HHC without granting proper opportunity of being heard. 11. Your appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds

Inox India Limited, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(2) Now Circle- 1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2000-2001 and other years before us, on the above two issues which were argued before us

ITA 522/AHD/2023[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Waghe Prasad Rao, Sr. DR
Section 251Section 251(2)Section 801A(9)Section 801HSection 80H

lease rent income. 10. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in disallowing deduction u/s 80HHC without granting proper opportunity of being heard. 11. Your appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds ... lease rent income. 10. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in disallowing deduction u/s 80HHC without granting proper opportunity of being heard. 11. Your appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds

Inox India Limited, Vadodara vs. The DCIT, Circle-1 Now Circle 1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2000-2001 and other years before us, on the above two issues which were argued before us

ITA 521/AHD/2023[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2000-01

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Waghe Prasad Rao, Sr. DR
Section 251Section 251(2)Section 801A(9)Section 801HSection 80H

lease rent income. 10. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in disallowing deduction u/s 80HHC without granting proper opportunity of being heard. 11. Your appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds ... lease rent income. 10. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in disallowing deduction u/s 80HHC without granting proper opportunity of being heard. 11. Your appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds

Shri Sunil Nana Kadam, Tal Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar vs. Income-Tax Officer (ITO), Ward 4, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 2121/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253

return of income on 22/11/2019 during the re-assessment proceedings 4. The Learned CIT(A) erred in law by failing to provide sufficient opportunity of being heard to the Appellant, by passing the appeal order on 09th August 2024 before the response from the Appellant was due (12th August

Suvarna Kiran Chavan, Nashik vs. ACIT Circle 1, Nashik

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

ITA 1785/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1785/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250

appellant to the tune of Rs.94,35,785/- as against the returned income. 2. Learned CIT(A) ought to have granted an appropriate opportunity of being heard to the appellant for making requisite submission considering the principle of natural justice. The appellant intends to make all the requisite submissions along

Khammam Finance Corporation, Khammam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Khammam

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

ITA 855/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Y.V.Bhanu Narayan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Karthik Manickam, DR
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

aside the impugned order and restore the appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A) to dispose of after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and considering the merits of the case. 15. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order

Neeli Krishna Yashwanth, Vijayawada vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada

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

ITA 311/VIZ/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.311/Viz/2024 (धनधाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year : 2021-22)

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(6)

merits, without seeking any adjournments and the learned Assessing Officer to take a fresh look at the matter, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds are accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

Infosys Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 962/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P.C Kincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A Sreenivasa Rao, CIT (DR)
Section 1Section 10ASection 2Section 234BSection 250Section 32A

details and description to the AO in this regard, who shall decide the issue afresh in accordance with law, after affording Assessee opportunity of being heard. In the event of the AO coming to the conclusion that the assets in question are in the nature of plant, the claim

Elarci (Estates and Constructional) Development Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-2(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for

ITA 4829/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Chandra Sinha
Section 115JSection 143(3)

file of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate Ground No.4 urged before him. The assessee should be given adequate opportunity of being heard. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court

Manjula Himmatlal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO WD-20(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2261/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jeetender C. LalaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(b)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Kamal Charan, Delhi, India vs. ITO Ward-43(6) Delhi, Delhi

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

ITA 3441/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2017-18 Kamal Charan, Vs. Ito, Ward 43(6), 34, Rail Vihar, Delhi Near Saraswati Vihar Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 (Pan: Adypc2281N) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Bharati Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 69A

issues in dispute are remitted back to the file of the AO with the directions to decide the same afresh, 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

Ms. Kenzo International, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 43(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 3274/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 3274/Del/2024, (A.Y.2015-16)

Section 143(1)

assessee, admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication and adjudicate the issues on merits. Needless to mention that assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to co- operate with the ld. CIT(A) for expeditious disposal of this appeal and not to take

Kolahai Infotech Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Assessment Unit, New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2815/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2016-17 Kolahai Infotech Private Vs. Assessment Unit, Limited, Income Tax 1St 129, Floor, Transport Department, Delhi Centre, Punjabi Bagh, Civic Centre, Mkinto New Delhi – 110 034 Road, New Delhi – 2 (Pan: Aadck3127C) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Sh. Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

erred in passing the impugned assessment order and NFAC has erred in upholding the same, without giving the Appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard and personal hearing and the same is in clear violation of principles of natural justice. 9. That, in view of the facts and circumstances

Nijhawan Travel Service Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 18(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 1731/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumarnijhawan Travel Service Income Tax Officer Pvt. Ltd., Ward-18(3), F-53, Bhagat Singh Vs. New Delhi-110002 Market, New Delhi-110001 Pan:Aaacn0150D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri A.K. Srivastava, Ca Respondent By Shri Amit Shukla, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12 /11/2024 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar,Jm: 1. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Against Order Dated 15/02/2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 24/12/2019 Of Income Tax Officer, Ward-18(3), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Ao”] For The Assessment Year 2017-18. Page1

Section 144

time of hearing, Learned Counsel for the appellant/assessee submitted that Ld. A.O. and Ld. CIT(A) passed ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that the matter may be restored to the file ... keeping in view the additions/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, we are of the opinion that assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard. Hence, the matter is restored to the file of Ld. AO for de novo adjudication in accordance with law. 8. In the result

Ranjeet Singh, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Department, Na

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1678/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh.S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2020-21 Ranjeet Singh Vs. Income Tax Department Vpo Machghar, Ballabgarh, Faridabad Faridabad 121004 Pan No.Aezps4772C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 56Section 96

appeal to the files of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court