← 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

Mahajan Awas Foundation, Ahmedabad vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1102/AHD/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Sept 2024

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1102/Ahd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : N.A. Mahajan Awas Foundation The Cit (Exemption) बनाम/ Fp No.300/23, Kanya Anandnagar-Prahaladnagar Gurukul, Road V/S. Near St.Ann’S School Ahmedabad – 380 015 Nr.Hira Jain Society Ramnagar, Sabarmati Ahmedabad – 380 005 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaocm 0161 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deven Kapadia, Ar Revenue By : Shri H. Phani Raju, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 29/08/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Mahajan Awas Foundation Against The Order Dated 28.03.2024 Passed By The Cit (Exemption), Ahmedabad (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(E)”), Rejecting The Assessee’S Application For Approval Under Section 80G(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Mahajan Awas Foundation Vs. The Cit (E)

For Appellant: Shri Deven Kapadia, ARFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT-DR
Section 80GSection 80G(5)

vouchers of expenses, which establish the charitable nature of its activities. The Ld.CIT (Exemption) shall provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard before passing a fresh order. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

Prem Dilip Gaikwad, Pune vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central, Pune

In the result, all the three appeals by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 818/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms Vaishnavi BadweFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

therefore, intend to set aside/ modify the assessment order within the meaning of section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961. An opportunity of being heard is therefore, given to you. You are requested to attend in person or through your authorized representative ... which he set aside the order to the file of the Assessing Officer for examining the issue afresh and after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 12. We find the assessee before the PCIT had explained that he has received Rs.50,000/- from the in-laws

Vaibhav Gaikwad, Pune vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central, Pune

In the result, all the three appeals by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 817/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms Vaishnavi BadweFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

therefore, intend to set aside/ modify the assessment order within the meaning of section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961. An opportunity of being heard is therefore, given to you. You are requested to attend in person or through your authorized representative ... which he set aside the order to the file of the Assessing Officer for examining the issue afresh and after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 12. We find the assessee before the PCIT had explained that he has received Rs.50,000/- from the in-laws

Madhuri Dilip Gaikwad, Pune vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central, Pune

In the result, all the three appeals by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 816/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms Vaishnavi BadweFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

therefore, intend to set aside/ modify the assessment order within the meaning of section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961. An opportunity of being heard is therefore, given to you. You are requested to attend in person or through your authorized representative ... which he set aside the order to the file of the Assessing Officer for examining the issue afresh and after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 12. We find the assessee before the PCIT had explained that he has received Rs.50,000/- from the in-laws

M/S Kiran Sanran Associates, Pune vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 791/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Naveen RanderFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 43C

therefore, intend to set aside / modify the assessment order within the meaning of sec 263 of the IT Act, 1961. An opportunity of being heard is therefore given to you. You are requested to attend in person or through your authorized representative ... file of the Assessing Officer for examining the above issues in detail and pass a fresh assessment order after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5 5. Aggrieved with such order of the PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds

Bhakti Kishor Gada, Pune vs. Income Tax Offcier -3(5), Pune

ITA 1021/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2014-15 Bhakti Kishor Gada 201, Sai Siddhi, Behind Congress Bhavan, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411004. Pan: Aghpg4273A. . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr BS Rajpurohit [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

claim and to represent effectively vis-à-vis to comply with the requirements sought. It shall be worthy to underlined that the opportunity of being heard should be real, reasonable and effective and same should not be empty formalities, it should not be a paper opportunity, the doctrine of natural

Ruturaj Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Pune vs. ITO, Ward 5(1), Pune

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

ITA 1418/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1418/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ruturaj Cooperative Vs. Ito, Ward-5(1), Pune. Housing Society Ltd., S. No.692/A-2, Ruturaj Society, Satara Road, Pune- 411037. Pan : Aaatr1116L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Umesh Phade Date Of Hearing : 31.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.10.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Ld Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming Addition Of Interest Income On Deposits Of Rs13,23,708/- Of Jain Mandir Which Has Overriding Title In Favour Of Jain Mandir & Thus Does Not Partake The Character Of Income In The Hands Of The Appellant. 2. The Ld Clt(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Appreciating That The Issue Is Decided By Cit (Appeal) 4 For Ay 2008-09 & 2010-11 In Favour Of The Appellant.

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)

hearing to the assessee. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC shall pass the order 8 as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notice issued by the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC without taking

Aket Foundation, Pune vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 1223/PUN/2023[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraaket Foundation Cit Exemption, Pune Shop No.3, Sidhi Apartment, Building No.20, Shindenagar, Vs. Bavdhan Khurd, Bavdhan B O Puen – 411021 Pan: Aavca1058Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Department By : Shri Keyur Patel, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-08-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-09-2024 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp :

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

Exemption erred in law and on facts in rejection of application for registration u/s 12AB rws 12A(1)(ac)(vi) without affording opportunity of being heard as required under the law. 2. The appellant prays for opportunity so as to explain its case. 4. Facts of the case in brief ... substantiate its case by filing the requisite details. The CIT(Exemption) shall decide the issue as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes

Adp Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle -1 (1), Hyderabad

In the result, ground 4 of the assessee is partly allowed and ground

ITA 95/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 92C

advance tax after considering the evidences filed by the assessee and decide the issues in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. accordingly, the grounds Nos.3 to 8 are treated as allowed for statistical purpose.” 11. The Ld. DR has also agreed that this

Sharda Devi Agarwal, Gangtok vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 3(1), Gangtok

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

ITA 1612/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: such authority.

Section 10Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 68Section 69A

District Authorities. We also direct the Learned CIT(A) to issue notice to the assessee while passing such order by providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In terms of the above, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee

Smt. Reena Daga, Burdwan vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(3), Budwan, Burdwan

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee’s are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1301/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: or at the time of hearing.”

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69C

whole issue to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to re-examine the issue afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee’s are also directed to appear before the authority below as and when notice will be served. In terms

Sunil Kumar Daga, Burdwan vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(3), Burdwan

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee’s are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1300/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: or at the time of hearing.”

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69C

whole issue to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to re-examine the issue afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee’s are also directed to appear before the authority below as and when notice will be served. In terms

Vidyasagar Himghar Pvt. Ltd., Paschim Midnapur vs. I.T.O., Ward - 38(1), Midnapur

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

ITA 1271/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: the date of hearing of the appeal.” 3. At the outset, the Ld. AR stated that the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is an ex-parte order without discussing on the merit of the case. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is not in accordance with law and liable to be quashed. On the other hand, on the contention of such prayer made by the AR of the assessee. Ld. DR did not raise any objection to such prayer made by AR before the Bench.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

That on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has passed the order without allowing reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard, in violation of principles of natural justice. 4. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has passed ... whole issue to the file of the Ld. AO with a direction to re-examine the issue afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to represent its case properly by submitting necessary documents in order to substantiate its claim before

Senbo Engineering Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-11, Kolkata.

ITA 1377/KOL/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2007-08 Senbo Engineering Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 87, Lenin Sarani, Vs Income Tax, Circle-11, Kolkata - 700013 Kolkata - 700013 (Pan: Aadcs6138B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Bhattacharya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80Section 80I

Tribunal set aside the matter to the file of the CIT (Appeals) with the direction to give the AO proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard and to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law. The Tribunal further observed that since the CIT (Appeals) for the first time ... first round was set aside by the Tribunal on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice after having found that no opportunity of being heard was given by the Id. CIT(Appeals) to the Assessing Officer and the matter was accordingly remitted back

Ansar Ali Molla., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-50(2), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1075/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. CIT (A) was duly explained with relevant evidences with reference to the grounds taken by the appellant and that the source of the deposits in the bank having been explained, the Ld. CIT (A) ought not to have rejected the same.

Section 144Section 250

involved in the appeal to the file of Assessing Officer with a direction to re-examine the issue afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In terms of the above, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, appeal

M/S Harish Chandra Baldewa, Howrah vs. I.T.O., Ward-46(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as per terms indicated above

ITA 366/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.366/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Harish Chandra Baldewa ………. Appellant 493/B/17, Vikram Vihar, G.T. Road (South) Shibpur Howrah-711102 (Pan: Alipb4249H) Vs. Income Tax Officer ………… Respondent Ward-46(2), Kolkata. Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 11.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 09.09.2024 Order Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Revisionary Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income- Tax-16, Kolkata [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 04.03.2020. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Read As Under:

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances

Om Prakash Agrawal HUF, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 5(1), Jaiupr, Jaipur

ITA 967/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Sh. Sarwan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

have been contained in Sub Clause (a) (b) & (c), which requires seeking prior approval of specified authority with respect to information; providing an opportunity of being heard to assessee and consideration of reply of assessee—Sub-Clause (d) of Section 148A mandates that after conducting enquiry by affording an opportunity

Divya Agrofood Product Private Limited, Kota Rajasthan vs. DCIT, ACIT, Central Circle-2, Kota, Kota Rajasthan

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

ITA 851/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri B.V. Maheshwari (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147

course of hearing, the ld. AR for the assessee prayed that the Id. CIT(A) and the AO both have not provided adequate opportunity of being heard. Thus, the assessee may be provided one more opportunity to advance his arguments / submissions before the ld. AO on merits as the orders ... during the assessment proceedings, finally the assessment completed with considering the submission of the assessee and the assessee was not given proper opportunity of being heard in the matter. The Bench further 10 Divya Agrofood Product Pvt. Ltd. noted the grievance from the grounds of appeal of the assessee wherein

Venkateshwara Wires Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: The Ld. Ao As Well As Before The Ld. Cit(A) As The Documents Submitted Was Only In Support Of Confirmations & Other Documents Already Submitted & No New Documents Were Submitted. 2. The Assessee Craves Your Indulgence To Add Amend Or Alter All Or Any Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 801ASection 80I

violation of principal of natural justice is void and nullity (d) CIT v. Panna Devi Saraogi [1970] 78 ITR 728 (Cal.). The opportunity of being heard should be real, reasonable and effective. The same should not be for name sake. It should not be a paper opportunity. (e) Tinbox Company ... assessee and that too without any attachment. The ld. DR submitted that the assessee has not submitted all the details despite the sufficient opportunity of being heard was given. So, the ld. DR objected to the application u/r 29 filed by the assessee when he failed to do before

Sanjiv Prakashan, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Jaipur

ITA 9/JPR/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2020-2021
For Appellant: Sh. Anil Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

income of the assessee without going into details of the case. These adjustments can be made only after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard as per scheme of the Act. 11. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the following decisions in favour of the assessee