← 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

Sujatabai Shesherao Bansode, Latur vs. ITO, Ward 4, Latur

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

ITA 950/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.950/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Sujatabai Shesherao Vs. Ito, Ward-4, Latur. Bansode, Bhim Nagar Atp & Tq Ahmedpur, Latur- 413515. Pan : Aplpb6172Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Umesh Phade Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.03.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1] On The Facts & In The Circumstances The Learned Cit(A) Nfac Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Condoning The Delay In Filing Appeal On The Ground That The Reasons For Delay Are Not Found To Be Satisfactory. 2] The Learned Cit(A) Has & On Facts In Not Appreciating That The Reasons For Delay Were Beyond The Control Of The Appellant & Were Genuine For Which The Delay Ought To Have Be Condoned & Appeal Ought To Have Decided On Merits.

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade
Section 10(37)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 144Section 147Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 96

opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC shall pass the order as per facts 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 and submit

Shweta Singh, Siliguri vs. ITO, Ward 2(3), Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for 8

ITA 14/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.14/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shweta Singh ………. Appellant 204, Tower No. 15, Mig Colony, Uttarayan, Matigara, Siliguri-734010. (Pan: Bndps2756J) Vs. Income Tax Officer ………… Respondent Ward-2(3), Siliguri, W.B. Appearances By: Shri Vikash Surana, Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Addl. Cit Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 26.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 04.09.2024 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 Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 06.11.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Framed U/S. 143(3)/144 Of The Act By Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Siliguri Dated 11.12.2017. I.T.A. No. 14/Kol/2024 Shweta Singh, Ay : 2015-16

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

merits are restored to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication. Needless to say that assessee should be given adequate opportunity of being heard and assessee to also avoid adjournments unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Page 4 of 5 I.T.A. No. 14/Kol/2024 Shweta Singh

Western India Cashew Company Private Limited, R. P. Towers vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore

ITA 859/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.859/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Western India Cashew Company The Principal Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax, No.88, Rp Towers, Coimbatore - 1. Coimbatore Road, Pollachi - 642 002. [Pan: Aaacw 3202B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G. Surendarnath Rao, C.A प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per S.R. Raghunatha, A.M : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Coimbatore-1 (Hereinafter “Pcit”] In Din & Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2023- 24/1060503232(1), Dated 05.02.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Assessing Officer For The Assessment Year 2020-21 U/S.143(3) R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The 'Act'), Vide Order Dated 06.09.2022.

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendarnath Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)

therefore, proposed to invoke the provisions of the Sec. 263 of the I. T. Act, 1961. You are hereby, afforded an opportunity of being heard and to show cause as to why the provisions of the Section 263 of the IT Act should not be invoked on the order under

Chevalier P J Cherian Arts and Cultural Foundation, Ashok Nagar vs. Ddi Exemptions, Chennai

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

ITA 702/CHNY/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.702/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2021-22 Chevalier Pj Cherian Arts & The Ddi (Exemptions), Cultural Foundation, Vs. Chennai. 45, First Avenue Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600083. [Pan: Aaaac 8002B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri P. Ravichandran, Ca ""थ" की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.09.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per S.R. Raghunatha, A.M : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Surat [Hereinafter “Cit(A)] In Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2023-24/1060188727(1), Dated 29.01.2024. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal. 1. The Orders Of The Assessing Officer & The First Appellate Authority Are Contrary To Law. 2. The Denial Of Exemption Under Section 11 To The Extent Of :- 2 -: Rs.16,60,000/- Is Contrary To Law When The Appellant Had Filed Form 10 Along With The Necessary Resolution For Accumulation Of Income. 3. The Denial Of Exemption By The First Appellate Authority On The Grounds That The Audit Report In Form 1Ob Was Incomplete Is Erroneous & In Any Case The Appellant Ought To Have Been Given An Opportunity To Rebut & Explain The Incompleteness. 4. The Appellant Craves Leave To Raise Additional Grounds.”

For Appellant: Shri P. Ravichandran, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, JCIT
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

confirmed the action of the CPC by holding as under: “The appellant was issued a notice u/s.250 of the Act, for providing an opportunity of being heard and to submit its claim. Online reply submitted by the appellant and documents available on records i.e, intimation u/s, 143(1), Form

Navbharat Builders, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -22(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3534/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaranavbharat Builders, Vs. Acit-Circle-22(1). 323/A-2, Piramalchambers, Behind Hotelanugraha, Lalbaugh. Mumbai-400012. New Shahupuri, Kolhapur-416001. Maharashtra Pan/Gir No. Aabfn1159L (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Appellant By Shri. Prashant Ghumane.Ar Respondent By Shri. Ashok Kumar Ambastha. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 02.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 05.09.2024 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assesse Has Filed The Appeal Against Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeal Nfac Delhi/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Income Tax Act. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: "1.The Order Bad, Illegal & Without Jurisdiction 1.1 In The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Appellate Order Framed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal

case, the appellate order is bad and illegal as the Ld. CIT (A) erred in not granting proper, sufficient and adequate opportunity of being heard to the Appellant while passing the appellate order. 3. EX-PARTE ORDER 3.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in passing the order ex - parte