← 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad vs. Pioneer Builders, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 57/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

would be glad to provide any further information your goodself may require in this regard. We also request you to provide another opportunity of being heard, in case your good self is not agreeable to the above proposition made by the Appellant. 25.1 The Ld. CIT(A), in the order

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad vs. Pioneer Builders, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 56/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

would be glad to provide any further information your goodself may require in this regard. We also request you to provide another opportunity of being heard, in case your good self is not agreeable to the above proposition made by the Appellant. 25.1 The Ld. CIT(A), in the order

Ramesh Gunda, Warangal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Warangal

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

ITA 550/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.550/Hyd/2024 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri S.Phanindra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madan Mohan Meena, DR
Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)

merits, without seeking any adjournments and the learned Assessing Officer to take a fresh look at the matter, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds are accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad vs. Dsr Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 54/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

would be glad to provide any further information your goodself may require in this regard. We also request you to provide another opportunity of being heard, in case your good self is not agreeable to the above proposition made by the Appellant. 25.1 The Ld. CIT(A), in the order

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad vs. Dsr Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 53/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

would be glad to provide any further information your goodself may require in this regard. We also request you to provide another opportunity of being heard, in case your good self is not agreeable to the above proposition made by the Appellant. 25.1 The Ld. CIT(A), in the order

D S R Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 51/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

would be glad to provide any further information your goodself may require in this regard. We also request you to provide another opportunity of being heard, in case your good self is not agreeable to the above proposition made by the Appellant. 25.1 The Ld. CIT(A), in the order

DCIT., Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad vs. Dsr Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 50/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

would be glad to provide any further information your goodself may require in this regard. We also request you to provide another opportunity of being heard, in case your good self is not agreeable to the above proposition made by the Appellant. 25.1 The Ld. CIT(A), in the order

D S R Infrastructureprivate Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle- 1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 49/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

would be glad to provide any further information your goodself may require in this regard. We also request you to provide another opportunity of being heard, in case your good self is not agreeable to the above proposition made by the Appellant. 25.1 The Ld. CIT(A), in the order

San Remo Realters Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 409/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 250Section 250(6)

merits, without seeking any adjournments and the learned Assessing Officer to take a fresh look at the matter, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds are accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

DCIT, Circle -1 (1), Tirupati vs. Dasan India Private Limited, Vijaywada

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

ITA 126/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri H Srinivasulu, AdvFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-
Section 143(3)

tested party then same cannot be rejected. Hence we direct the Ld. AO to verify the comparability of Globe after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, we allow this ground of the assessee for statistical purpose. 14. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly

Sudarshan Panja, Haldia vs. DCIT, Cir. 27(1), Haldia

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for 12

ITA 574/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.574/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sudarshan Panja ………. Appellant (Pan: Akbpp6220A)) Vs. Dcit, Circle-27(1), Haldia ………… Respondent Appearances By: N O N E Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 29.08.2024 Order Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2014-15 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 08.02.2024 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Framed U/S. 263/143(3) Of The Act By Dcit, Circle-27(1), Haldia Dated 30.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Read As Under:

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 40Section 68

portal then the assessee deserves to be allowed TDS credit of Rs.4,75,659/-. Needless to mention that assessee should be given sufficient opportunity of being heard. Therefore, this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 11. other grounds being general in nature need no adjudication

Bagnan Sankalpa Welfare Society, Howrah vs. CIT (Exmption), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for 7

ITA 17/KOL/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Aug 2024

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.17/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: …. Bagnan Sankalpa Welfare Society ………. Appellant (Pan: Aaiab7609M) Vs. Cit (Eexemption), Kolkata ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Pritam Sadhukhan & Shri Biswajit Bera, Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri Rajat Mitra, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 14.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 29.08.2024 Order Per Dr. Manish Borad:

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: “1. The application for approval u/s. 80G(5)(iii) has been rejected without giving proper opportunity of being heard, which may be granted or the procuring should be set aside for giving us the proper opportunity of being heard before

Narendra Kumar Agrawal, Burhanpur vs. PCIT Indore-1, Indore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 345/IND/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaninarendra Kumar Agrawal Pcit (1) 203, Ck Campus Aaykar Bhawan Bahadarpur Road Vs. Indore Burhanpur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adapa0131B Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2024

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263

erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 6. You are hereby given an opportunity of being heard to explain as to why the proposed revision should not be carried out. For this purpose, your reply should be received on or before 29/02/2024 ... that the AO shall re-examine only the issue which has been indicated for further investigation in the preceding discussion, after according due opportunities of being heard to the assessee.” 5.10 This find of the Pr. CIT clearly shows that he has set aside the matters of the record

Basant Rao Shelke, Bhopal vs. ACIT-1(1), Bhopal

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 320/IND/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Aug 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Basant Rao Shelke, Acit-1(1), 87, Shubhalaya Villa, Bhopal Vs. E-8 Trilanga, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Afops5987B Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande , Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2024 O R D E R

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

NFAC, Delhi erred in passing the order u/s 250 of the Act without fixing the case for hearing and without giving the opportunity of being heard and thereby not following the instruction as given in Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2021 as per para-5(1)(b) of the Scheme and thus

International Seaport Dredging Private Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT - 1, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1597/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baram Som, IRS, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 71Section 79

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 of the case justify

Sh. Anoop Kumar Gupta, Ajmer vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Ajmer

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

ITA 939/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

assessee was deprived of the hearing before the ld. CIT(A) and therefore, bench feels that the assessee should get one more opportunity of being heard on merits as the contention that the assessee has taken ground for merits as well as on facts and the same has not been

Mahendra Kumar Sharma, Churu vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 725/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. R. P. Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests 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

Abhimanyu Education Society, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

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

ITA 476/JPR/2024[2023-24 to 2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2024

Bench: The Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Choudhary (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik ( CIT) a
Section 12A

view that let the ld. CIT(E) decide the issue based on the submission of the assessee and after providing proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee and making necessary enquiry in accordance with the law. However, the assessee will not seek any 9 Abhimanyu Education Society

Microland Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1321/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri B.K. Manjunath, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(4)Section 244ASection 80JSection 90

also submitted that, intimation u/s. 143(1)(a) also becomes bad in law as the adjustment proposed therein is without providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He also submitted that the adjustment made therein, cannot be treated as prima facie inadmissible adjustments, as contemplated

Kishorsingh Pratapsinghji Rathod, Mumbai vs. ITO 20(2)-3, Mumbai

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

ITA 3643/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ashish VermaFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 156Section 249(2)(c)Section 68

From Ground no.1 and 2, we note that assessee has contested on ld. CIT(A) not allowing the condonation of delay by granting opportunity of being heard and dismissing the appeal in limine. In this respect, we perused the order of ld. CIT(A) wherein in para