“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

Red Hat India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle- 15 (3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 215/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanm/S. Red Hat India Pvt. Ltd., A-201, Supreme Business Park, Supreme City, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076, Pan No. : Aabcr7091N. ….. Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, Ms. Nikhila Bhalla and Archita Bhalla Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kamat Ld. CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(10)

disposal. Therefore, the AO is directed to decide this issue on the basis of evidence brought on record by the assessee by providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Consequently, the ground No. 2.7 is decided for statistical purposes in favour of the assessee. Ground ... disposal. Therefore, the AO is directed to decide this issue on the basis of evidence brought on record by the assessee by providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Consequently, the ground No.2.8 is decided for statistical purposes in favour of the assessee. Ground No. 2.9 25. The assessee

Pyaro Devi Sewa Trust, New Delhi vs. CIT(Exemption), New Delhi

In the result, ITA No.28/Del/2024 is dismissed and ITA No

ITA 28/DEL/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2024

Bench: Before Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble Vice Before Before Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble Vice Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Bleshri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & And & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Hon’Ble Accountant Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra , Hon’Ble Accountant , Hon’Ble, Hon’Blemember Member

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 80G

impugned order of learned CIT(Exemptions) and restore the matter back to his file for de-novo adjudication after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to comply with all the queries raised or to be raised by learned CIT(Exemptions). After

Pyaro Devi Sewa Trust, New Delhi vs. CIT (Exemption), New Delhi

In the result, ITA No.28/Del/2024 is dismissed and ITA No

ITA 27/DEL/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2024

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 80G

Rajeev Kumar Goel, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-20, Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 799/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 115BSection 132Section 69A

materials on record. The basic grievance of the assessee is against ex-parte AY: 2019-20 disposal of his appeal, without providing adequate opportunity of being heard. 2. Briefly stated, the assessee is a resident individual. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was conducted ... order. 2 | P a g e AY: 2019-20 3. Before us, it is the say of the assessee that without providing adequate opportunity of being heard, the appeal has been disposed of. Learned Departmental Representative opposed assessee’s contention. However, he did not raise objection against restoration of issues

Pushpa Devi Bajaj, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-32, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2870/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Before Shri Saktijit Dey, Before Before Shri Saktijit Dey, Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice & And & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, , , , Accountant Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra Accountantmember Member

Section 143(3)

issues arising in both the appeals to the file of learned first appellate authority for de-novo adjudication after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessees. We further direct the assessees to comply with the hearing notices issued by learned first appellate authority and also participate

Radheyshyam Bajaj, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-32, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2867/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Section 143(3)

Comparex India P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 2151/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(10)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(8)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

documentation. 9. On the facts and in law, the Revenue erred in defying the principles of natural justice by not granting any 5 opportunity of being heard to the Appellant while rejecting R Systems International Limited selected by the Appellant in its TP documentation. 10. On the facts

Ebro India Pvt.Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-7(1), Delhi

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1291/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Delhi09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 68

sought by the appellant [refer reply dated 11.04.2022 @ page 159 of paperbook] 21. It is settled law that any assessment concluded without affording opportunity of being heard is non-est, illegal and bad in law. 22. On the issue of denial of opportunity of hearing, specific attention is invited ... No.19402/2021; decided on 08.07.2021] (Ori) 26. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned assessment completed without providing any opportunity, much less adequate opportunity, of being heard to the appellant calls for being quashed at the threshold. Re (c): Impugned assessment order passed by JAO instead of NFAC

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Net 4 India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, in the terms indicated herein above

ITA 3657/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs M/S. Net 4 India Ltd., Circle-18(1), Ab-11, Community Centre, New Delhi. Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-110029. Pan-Aaact0291M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, Cit Dr Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 29.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.09.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-42, New Delhi Dated 17.03.2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 14Section 145(3)

deleting estimated profit of Rs. 14,93,94,000/- u/s 145(3) of the Act by admitting additional evidence and without giving opportunity of being heard the AO with regard to nature and validity of additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A(3) of the Rule? 4. Whether on facts

Sh. Gaurav Pathak, Ludhiana vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana

In the result, the ground no

ITA 413/CHANDI/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 271(1)

should not be taken as income for the year under consideration. The final opportunity of being heard was given to the assessee, by way of issuing notice u/s 142(1) of the Act for 14.12.2019, falling which, the addition of Rs. 2,62,37,267/- would be made as unexplained

Vinodbhai Ugardas Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-5(2) Present Jurisdiction the Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 32/AHD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2010-11 Vinodbhai Ugardas Patel Dy.Cit, Cir.2(1)(1) Nirma House Vs Ahmedabad. B/H. Petrol Pump Ashram Road Ahmedabad 38009. Pan : Aavpp 9679 F. (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate Assessee By Revenue By : Ms.Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/06/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Guptathis Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(A), Delhi Dated 26.07.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” For Short) For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Grounds Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Read As Under:

For Respondent: Ms.Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.DR

Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 271Section 54F

other conditions. 11. Thus, in the totality of circumstances, we consider it expedient that the matter is examined afresh after granting proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It will be open to the AO to verify the entire issue de novo and satisfy himself that the conditions

Hirschvogel Components India Private Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, Pune

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

ITA 796/PUN/2024[AY 2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Pune06 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

year and if so, whether corresponding reduction should be given in the subsequent year. Needless to say, the Assessing Officer shall give due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue as per fact and law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds of appeal raised

Kalavathi Bollaboena, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 625/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Sri P.Vinod, ARFor Respondent: Sri Madan Mohan Meena, DR

Section 144

just and convenient if the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer to issue notice to the assessee, afford an opportunity of being heard and then take a view according to law. We hold and order so. Grounds are accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Kalavathi Bollaboena, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 624/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Sri P.Vinod, ARFor Respondent: Sri Madan Mohan Meena, DR

Section 144

Sri Rangarao Nadipally, Karimnagar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Karimnagar

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

ITA 516/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year – 2014-15 Sri Rangarao Nadipally Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Karimnagar Circle – 1 Karimnagar Pan : Acbpn3816E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M Prudhvi Raj Appeared For Shri D.Sashank, Ld.Ar Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Ld.Dr 05.09.2024 Date Of Hearing: Date Of Pronouncement: 06.09.2024

For Appellant: Shri M Prudhvi Raj appeared for Shri D.Sashank, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Ld.DR

NFAC erred in passing a non-speaking order without considering the evidences and details filed by the Appellant thereby not providing a proper opportunity of being heard. 3. The NFAC erred in not considering the additional evidences filed during the appellate proceedings only on the ground that a proper petition ... filed in the appropriate format, thereby depriving the appellant of an effective opportunity of being heard. 4. The NFAC erred in upholding the order passed by the Assessing Officer wherein the opening cash balance has been treated as unexplained investment even though there was closing cash balance available

Kondamma Dara, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(6), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 303/VIZ/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 303/Viz/2024 (निर्धररवरध/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) Kondamma Dara Income Tax Officer – Ward – 4(6) V. 1-23, Anandapuram Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam – 531163 Andhra Pradesh [Pan : Bfmpd7127R] (अपीलार्/ Appellant) (प्र्/ Respondent) करद्त्क्पनतनिनरध/ Assessee Represented By : Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar र्जसक्पनतनिनरध/ Department Represented By : 04.09.2024 सुिव्ईसम्पहोिेकीनतनि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोरर्कीत्रीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.09.2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [Hereinafter In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1066191061(1) Dated 28.06.2024 Arising Out Of Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘Act’) Dated 31.10.2019 For The A.Y. 2012-13. 2. Briefly Stated Facts Of The Case Are That, Assessee Is An Individual & Has Not Filed Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2012-13. As Per The Information Received

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

outset, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] submitted that Assessing Officer as well as the Ld.CIT(A) passed exparte order without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, therefore, considering additions/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, Ld.AR pleaded that the matter may be remitted back to the file ... keeping in view the additions / disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, I am of the opinion that assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in order to meet the principles of natural justice

Sri Gokul Profits, Rajahmundry vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Rajahmundry

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

ITA 297/VIZ/2024[2012-23]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Sept 2024AY 2012-23

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 297/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) Sri Gokul Profits V. Asst. Cit – Circle – 2 D.No. 14-193/1, Sri Krishna Nilayam Income Tax Office, Aayakar Bhavan Veerabhadrapuram Rtc Complex Road, Rajahmundry – 533105 Andhra Pradesh Rajahmundry – 533105 Andhra Pradesh [Pan : Abrfs3990B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69

time of appeal hearing. 5. At the outset, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] submitted that Ld.CIT(A) passed exparte order without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, therefore, considering additions/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, Ld.AR pleaded that the matter may be remitted back to the file ... keeping in view the additions / disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, I am of the opinion that assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in order to meet the principles of natural justice

Challa Swathi, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 291/VIZ/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 291/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) Challa Swathi V. Income Tax Officer – Ward –1(3) D.No. 49-44-23/A Income Tax Office Near Maharani Parlour, Akkayapalem Direct Taxes Building Visakhapatnam – 530016 Mvp Double Road, Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Ahvpc1087D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing.” 7. Ld. AR submitted that Ld.CIT(A) passed exparte order without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, therefore, considering additions/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, Ld.AR pleaded that the matter may be remitted back to the file ... keeping in view the additions / disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, I am of the opinion that assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in order to meet the principles of natural justice

Coastal Engineering & Equipements (India) Private Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 138/VIZ/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 138/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2020-21) Coastal Engineering & Equipments V. Income Tax Officer – Circle 1(1) (India) Private Limited Income Tax Office 30-1-1/7, Flat No. 201 Pratyakshakar Bhawan Neeladri Complex Mvp Double Road, South Jail Road, Daba Gardens Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam – 530020 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaecc3619C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 250

deletion of the additions made therein.” 7. At the outset, Ld. AR submitted that Ld.CIT(A) passed exparte order without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, therefore, considering additions/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, Ld.AR pleaded that the matter may be remitted back 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. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in order to meet the principles of natural justice

Soumitra Ganguli, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 61(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 633/KOL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(1)Section 234B

liable to be quashed inasmuch as the intimation has sought to make adjustment on account of a debatable issue without giving any opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. iii) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred