“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

Arun Namdeo Keni, Panvel vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-5, Panvel

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

ITA 813/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Dr. P DanielFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 54

NFAC with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to make his submissions before the CIT(A) / NFAC on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment

Aadhar Shikshan Sanstha Yelavi, Sangli vs. CIT, Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 748/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Sept 2024

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.748/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : N.A. Aadhar Shikshan Sanstha The Commissioner Of Yelavi, V Income Tax, Exemption, At Post Yelavi, Tal Tasgaon, S Pune. Dist. Sangli, Sangli – 416416. Pan: Aaata3972D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare – Ar Revenue By Shri Mirtyunjoy Barnwal – Dr Date Of Hearing 11/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12/09/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune Under Section 80G Of The Act, Dated 15.02.2024. The Ld.Cit(E) Dismissed The Application Of The Assessee On The Ground That The Application Is Time Barred. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Ground(S) Of Appeal : “1. The Id Cit Exemption Erred In Law & On Facts In Treating The Application Under Clause (Iit) Of First Proviso To Sub-Section (5) Of Section 80G As Non- Maintainable On The Ground Of Being Filed Aadhar Shikshan Sanstha Yelavi [A]

Section 10Section 11Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(vi)

case referred to in sub-clause (B) of clause (iv) of the first proviso, rejecting such application, after affording it a reasonable opportunity of being heard;] (iii) ……. New Procedure for registration: 6. The new provision for Registration was introduced by Finance Act, 2020. There was amendment in the registration procedure

Ramachandra Reddy Yamanagari, Mahaboobnagar vs. ITO., Ward 1, Mahaboobnagar

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

ITA 789/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 789/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Ramachandra Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Yamnagari, Ward-1 Mahaboobnagar Mahaboobnagar Pan:Afipy4113K (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate T Chaitanya Kumar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Rahul Singhania, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/09/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocate T Chaitanya KumarFor Respondent: : Shri Rahul Singhania, DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144

considered view, the issue needs to go back to the file of the learned CIT (A) for fresh consideration after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus, I set aside the issue to the file of the learned CIT (A) for fresh consideration of the issue. Needless

M/S. Utkal Builders Ltd., Bhubaneshwar vs. DCIT, Circle - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed not only on legal ground of violation of principles of natural justice but also on merits

ITA 605/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. Nos.604&605/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S Utkal Builders Ltd…....…….…....…………….......…....………....Appellant Plot No.777, Virayatan Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneshwar, Khorda, Orissa – 751007. [Pan: Aaacu5502C] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata……............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. M. Surana, Ar & Sunil Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 18, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 12, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For Different Assessment Years Against The Separate Orders Dated 15.02.2024 & 14.02.2024 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’). Since Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Appeals, Therefore, Both The Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. Ita No.604/Kol/2024 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts. 2. Ita No.604/Kol/2024 - The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 131Section 250Section 68

when no such disallowance was made ln any year, more so the cost of Construction was added in WIP and further, no reasonable opportunity of being heard was given by the AO and even otherwise such disallowance without rejecting the books of accounts was bad in law. 6. For that

M/S. Utkal Builders Ltd., Bhubaneshwar vs. DCIT, Circle - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed not only on legal ground of violation of principles of natural justice but also on merits

ITA 604/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Section 131Section 250Section 68

Art O Gem Jewellers Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-8(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1041/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.1041/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11

Section 147Section 250

I.T.A. No. 1041/Kol/2023 Art O Gem Jewellers Ltd., AY : 2010-11 restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication for which reasonable opportunity of being heard be provided to the assessee. The assessee is also given liberty to file necessary documents in support of his contention before

Doha Bank Qsc, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Internation Taxation -2(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3866/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

unaware about the notices having issued. The Ld. CIT(A) thus passed an ex-parte order. 2.1. The Ld. AR prayed for an opportunity of being heard before the Ld. CIT(A), and permission to file requisite details in respect of issue contested. 2.2 The Ld. DR though supported ... perused the submissions advanced by both the sides in the light of the records placed before us. 3. It is noted that, proper opportunity of being heard has not been received by the assessee, due to non receipt of the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) to mail addresses

Shri Dilip K Doshi, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-42(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 3018/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Prashant Maharshi & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dharmil Jhaveri, CAFor Respondent: Shri Akhatar Hussain Ansari, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 147Section 148Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H (SMC)" BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI. PRASHANT MAHARSHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. SANDEEP SINGH

Ramesh Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-11(1), New Delhi

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 880/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra[Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 251Section 50C

view of provision of section 251 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and more particularly 2 under the circumstances when last notice for opportunity of being heard was provided more than 16 months back and thus order so passed by Id CIT(A) needs to be set aside. 2. That ... NFAC without appreciating the correct facts of the case and without giving proper opportunity of being heard is not justified in law and facts and circumstances of the case in not deciding all the grounds of appeal taken by the appellant assessee which was independent to each other. 3. Without

Shree Dhama Infrastructure Private Limited, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 2715/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareeka.Yr. : 2015-16 Shree Dhama Infrastructure Private Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1)(1), Limited, Ghaziabad C-12/114/116, 1St Floor, D.B. Plaza, Rdc, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh – 201 002 (Pan: Aaocs4571C) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Yogesh Nair, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 194CSection 250

case. 2. Because, ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal summarily on the line of in limine, without providing proper opportunity of being heard as no notice of hearing was received on mail/sms, assessee came to know about the ex-parte order only on routine checking by counsel ... portal in April, 2024. 3. Because, ld. CIT(A) further erred in without adjudicating any grounds, grounds are dismissed summarily without any opportunity of being heard thus order is contrary to provisions of section 250 of the Act. 4. Because, without prejudice to above and in alternative, addition

R&De (Engrs) Employees Co-Op. Credit Society, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 7(3), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 762/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Shri A.V. IyerFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

taxing interest income in dispute the AO will allow deduction on account of expenses on the lines indicated above. The AO will afford opportunity of being heard to the assessee and filing appropriate evidence, if desired, by the assessee to substantiate its case, before deciding the issue

Thirumala Earth Movers, Gajwel vs. DCIT., Circle-9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 653/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.652 & 653/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Thirumala Earth Movers Vs. Dcit, Circle-9(1) Gajwel Hyderabad [Pan : Aacft0631Q] अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Av Raghuram, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri D.Praveen, Dr

For Appellant: Shri AV Raghuram, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.Praveen, DR

Section 282

forth his case. He, therefore prayed to remand the matter back to the file of the learned CIT(A) to afford an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, keeping in view the principles of natural justice. 3. As a matter of fact, though the learned DR does not concede ... justice, we remand both the quantum as well as the penalty appeals to the file of the learned CIT(A) to afford an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue along with quantum appeal pending before the learned CIT(A). Accordingly, appeals of the assessee

Salguti Industries Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 326/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.326/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Salguti Industries Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Circle-3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aakcs2452F] अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri D.Praveen, Dr

For Appellant: Shri Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Shri D.Praveen, DR

Section 143(1)

assessee. He, therefore prayed to remand the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) to condone the delay and afford an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 3. As a matter of fact, though the learned DR does not concede to condone the delay, there ... condone the delay, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) to afford an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and take a view according to law, in the interest of justice. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Maa Saraswati Research and Development Trust, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 43(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1304/KOL/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Sept 2024AY 2022-2023

Bench: the date of hearing.”

Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

remand back the whole issue to the file of AO with a direction to re-examine the issue afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to furnish supporting documents in order to substantiate its claim. In terms of the above, appeal

Topgrain Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 1265/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Sept 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: the Tribunal. On this aspect assessee had filed petition praying for condonation of such delay.

Section 144Section 14ASection 250

whole issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to re-examine the issue afresh after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In terms of the above, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 3 I.T.A. No. 1265/Kol/2024 Topgrain Vyapaar

Morattupalayam Primary Agricultural Co Op Credit Society Ltd, Tirupur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2) Tirupur, Tirupur

In the result the appeal is allowed

ITA 1728/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1728/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2016-17 Morattupalayam Primary Agricultural Income Tax Officer, Coop. Credit Society Ltd, Ward-1(2), No.1/142, Kavundampalayam, Tirupur. Morattupalayam (Post), Uthukulli Taluk, Tirupur, Tamil Nadu-638752. [Pan: Aacam0406D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, C.A प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.09.2024

For Appellant: Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, C.AFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 250Section 80P

appeal. We find sufficient force in the assessee’s arguments. No appellant gains by non-prosecution of its case and reasonable opportunity of being heard is a natural right of every litigant. The delay in filing the appeal is therefore condoned and the appeal is being adjudicated as under ... orders and remand the back matter for re adjudication after considering all the documents filed by the :- 4 -: assesse and giving him an opportunity of being heard. The said remission is however subject to the assesse paying a cost of Rs.2500/-(two thousand five hundred only) to be paid

Uttrakhand Samaj, Jaipur vs. The CIT, Exemption, Jaipurthe CIT, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed, for statistical

ITA 778/JPR/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2024

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. K. L. Choudhary, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80G

reconsider the application of the assessee trust for registration u/s. 12AB of the Act in accordance with law and after according reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Based on the observations recorded herein above the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no. 775/JP/2024 allowed, for statistical purpose

Uttrakhand Samaj, Jaipur vs. The CIT, Exemption, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed, for statistical

ITA 777/JPR/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2024

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos.775 to 778/JP/2024 Uttrakhand Samaj 51/117 Sec 5, Pratap Nagar Sanganer, Jaipur cuke Vs. The CIT, Exemption Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAATU 6874 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. K. L. Choudhary, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 20/08/2024 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@D

For Appellant: Sh. K. L. Choudhary, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80G

Uttrakhand Samaj, Jaipur vs. The CIT, Exemption, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed, for statistical

ITA 775/JPR/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2024

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. K. L. Choudhary, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80G

Arjun Tara Maya Foundation, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 630/JPR/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2024AY 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Anil Dhaka (CIT)

Section 10ASection 12ASection 80G

following grounds: - “1.The Impugned order u/s 12AB of the Act dated 23/08/2023 is bad in law and on facts, without providing adequate & reasonable opportunity of being heard, being without jurisdiction and for various other reasons and hence the same may kindly be quashed. 2.2 3.1 ITA No. 622&630/JPR/2024 Arjun ... grounds: - “1. The Impugned order u/s 80G/10AB of the Act dated 23/08/2023 is bad in law and on facts, without providing adequate & reasonable opportunity of being heard, being without jurisdiction and for various other reasons and hence the same may kindly be quashed. 2. The Ld. CIT(E) erred