← 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

DCIT Central Circle-14, New Delhi vs. Sh. Vijay Kumar Soni, New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2144/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Sudhir Kumarita No. 1883/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Bijay Kumar Soni, Vs Dcit, C/O Anil Jain Dd & Co., Central Circle-14, 611, Surya Kiran Building, 19, New Delhi-110055 K. G. Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aolps5917H Ita No. 2144/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Dcit, Vs Bijay Kumar Soni, Central Circle-14, 61/14, Block No. 61, Ram Jas, New Delhi-110055 Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aolps5917H Assessee By : Sh. Anil Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Monika Dhami, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.09.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Dhami, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 254Section 263Section 264

requires verification of any issue by way of submission of any document by the assessee or any other person or where an opportunity of being heard is to be provided to the assessee, the order giving effect to the said order under section 250 or section 254 or section ... consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in the said order, if such other person was given an opportunity of being heard before the said order was passed.” 6. On the issue of limitation, we are guided by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court

Bijay Kumar Soni, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1883/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Sudhir Kumarita No. 1883/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Bijay Kumar Soni, Vs Dcit, C/O Anil Jain Dd & Co., Central Circle-14, 611, Surya Kiran Building, 19, New Delhi-110055 K. G. Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aolps5917H Ita No. 2144/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Dcit, Vs Bijay Kumar Soni, Central Circle-14, 61/14, Block No. 61, Ram Jas, New Delhi-110055 Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aolps5917H Assessee By : Sh. Anil Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Monika Dhami, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.09.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Dhami, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 254Section 263Section 264

requires verification of any issue by way of submission of any document by the assessee or any other person or where an opportunity of being heard is to be provided to the assessee, the order giving effect to the said order under section 250 or section 254 or section ... consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in the said order, if such other person was given an opportunity of being heard before the said order was passed.” 6. On the issue of limitation, we are guided by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court

Sanjay Balvantlal Khatri, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-7(2)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 988/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 988/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Sanjay Balvantlal Khatri The Ito बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम 962, Pedhivalo Khancho, Ward-7(2)(2), Ahmedabad Vs. Jahapanah Ni Pole, Kalupur, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Amapk6283D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri M. K. Patel, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rohit Aasudani, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 05/09/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Addl./Jcit(A)-9, Mumbai, (In Short ‘The Jcit(A)’), Dated 27.03.2024 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Following Grounds In This Appeal:

For Respondent: Shri Rohit Aasudani, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147

discussed above. He may also decide the matter on the merits of the case after allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is directed to make compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) and not to seek any adjournment without any pressing reason. 8. In the result

Neptune Buildcon LLP, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(2) (Previously Ward-1(2)(3)), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1177/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1177/Ahd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Neptune Buildcon Llp The Ito, Ward-1(2)(2) 24/P, Imperia बनाम/ [Previously Ward-1(2)(3)] Madhvnagar 4 Rasta Vadodara-390 007 V/S. Off Old Padra Road Vadodara – 390 020 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aakfn 6673 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hemant Suthar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02/09/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Suthar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 23Section 28Section 72A

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), NFAC has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of the Ld. A. O. in the addition of an amount Rs. 58,57,259/- u/s. 28(iv) r.w.s. 41(2)(b)(i) r.w.s

Sunilkumar Narsinhbhai Patel, Sabarkantha vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Modasa

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

ITA 1100/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1100/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) िनधा"रण वष" Sunilkumar Narsinhbhai The Income Tax Officer बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Patel Ward-1, Modasa, Gujarat Vs. Patel Fali, Old Bus Station Road, Vadagam – 383307, Sabarkantha District, Gujarat, 383307 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acxpp2738B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Chirag Raval, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rohit Aasudani, Sr. Dr 03/09/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 05/09/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’), Dated 16.11.2023 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. 2. There Is A Delay Of 130 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Explaining The Reason For Delay. It

For Respondent: Shri Rohit Aasudani, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

matter may be set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the matter on merits after allowing another opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. Per contra, Sri Rohit Asudani, the Ld. SR. DR supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). He, however ... these facts, we are of the considered opinion that the matter may be set aside to the Ld. CIT(A) to allow another opportunity of being heard to the assessee and, ITA No. 1100/Ahd/2024 [Sunilkumar Narsinhbhai Patel vs. ITO] A.Y. 2017-18 - 5 – thereafter, decide the matter on the merits

Ashit Dhirajlal Doshi, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1072/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1072/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Ashit Dhirajlal Doshi The Acit बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम 26 Basant Bahar –Iii, Nr. Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad Vs. Homeopathic Medical College, Bopal Ghuma Road, Bopal, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380054 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpd7752Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Mehul K. Patel, Advocate अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rohit Aasudani, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 05/09/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’), Dated 20.03.2024 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had E-Filed His Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18 On 31/03/2018 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.11,64,620/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass To Examine The Huge Deduction Claimed Under Section 57 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’).

For Respondent: Shri Rohit Aasudani, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 57

proper, in the interest of justice, to set aside the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to allow another opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is found that the Ld. CIT(A) had given a finding that in the absence of any explanation along with