← 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

Kundarapalli Narashiman Natarajan, Krishnagiri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Krishnagiri

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

ITA 1800/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1800/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 Shri Kundarapalli Narashiman The Income Tax Officer, Natarajan, Vs. Ward-1, No.144, Madras Road New Pet, Krishnagiri. Krishnagiri – 635 001. Pan: Aempn 8708C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman, F.C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar,Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi In Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1064419040 (1) Dated 29.04.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18 U/S.147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 24.03.2022. 2. The Common Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is As Regards To Estimating Income By Applying Profit Rate Of 8% By Treating The Deposits Made As Turnover For An Amount Of Rs.13,20,33,640/-And Also Addition Made By Ao Of Cash Deposits Made During Demonetization Period In Specified Bank Notes Amounting To Rs.1,65,28,590/- Added U/S.69A R.W.S. 115Bbe Of The Act Without Providing Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee & Also The Order Of Cit(A)-Nfac Is Dismissal For Default On The Part Of The Assessee & No Adjudication On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman, F.C.A ""For Respondent: Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar,CIT
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 69A

during demonetization period in specified bank notes amounting to Rs.1,65,28,590/- added u/s.69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and also the order of CIT(A)-NFAC is dismissal for default on the part of the assessee ... outset, the ld.AR for the assessee stated that the assessment is 144 assessment i.e., best judgment assessment and assessee was not provided reasonable opportunity of being heard and moreover, the CIT(A)-NFAC dismissed the appeal for default without speaking on merits. The ld.AR took us through the order

Shri Kathiriyappan Periyur Shanmuganathan, Dharmapuri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Dharmapuri

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

ITA 1797/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1797/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Shri Kathiriyappan Periyur The Income Tax Officer, Shanmuganathan, Vs. Ward-1, No.5/203, Periyar Village, Dharmapuri. Pikkili Post, Pennagaram Taluk, Dharmapuri – 636 809 Pan: Dqpps 7399G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman, F.C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar,Cit

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman, F.C.A ""For Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar,CIT
Section 144Section 151

entire cash deposit of Rs.45,56,564/- made in savings bank account maintained by assessee with Lakshmi Villas Bank Ltd., without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ld.AR also stated that there is no adjudication in respect to approval given in terms of section ... term of the above, the matter is remanded back to the file of AO for fresh adjudication after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Ramakrishnan Senthil Kumar, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-19(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1781/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1781/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16 Shri Ramakrishnan Senthil The Deputy Commissioner Kumar, Vs. Of Income Tax, New No.80, I Avenue, Non-Corporate Circle 19(1), Ashok Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 083. Pan: Ammps 5348D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Abhishek Muarli, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar,Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi In Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1065644230(1) Dated 14.06.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle 19(1), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2015-16 U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 26.03.2022. 2. At The Outset, The Ld.Ar For The Assessee Drew Our Attention To The First Issue Raised By Way Of Ground Nos.2 To 4 Regarding Non- Condonation Of Delay By Cit(A)-Nfac. He Referred To The Following Grounds:- Non-Condonation Of Delay By Cit(A):

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Muarli, CAFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar,CIT
Section 143(3)

NFAC is set aside and matter remanded back to his file for fresh adjudication on merits after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Modern Facility and Security Management, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-19(6), Chennai

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1477/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1475, 1476 & 1477/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Modern Facility & Security The Income Tax Officer, Management, Non-Corporate Ward-19(6), C/O.Moses Ravikumar, Sabari Nivas, Chennai. No.10, Gurudeva Nagar, Iaf Road, East Tambaram, Selaiyur Post, Chennai. [Pan: Aarfm7280R] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri J.Saravanan, Advocate, प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Dr.Samuel Pitta, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2024

For Appellant: Shri J.Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr.Samuel Pitta, JCIT
Section 144Section 148Section 250

directed to make complete and correct compliance towards the notices issued by the AO. Needless to say that the AO will allow reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assesse. ITA No.1475, 1476 & 1477 /Chny/2024 :- 4 -: 6.0 We noted that the assesse was provided many opportunities by both the authorities

Modern Facility and Security Management, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-19(6), Chennai

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1476/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1475, 1476 & 1477/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Modern Facility & Security The Income Tax Officer, Management, Non-Corporate Ward-19(6), C/O.Moses Ravikumar, Sabari Nivas, Chennai. No.10, Gurudeva Nagar, Iaf Road, East Tambaram, Selaiyur Post, Chennai. [Pan: Aarfm7280R] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri J.Saravanan, Advocate, प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Dr.Samuel Pitta, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2024

For Appellant: Shri J.Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr.Samuel Pitta, JCIT
Section 144Section 148Section 250

directed to make complete and correct compliance towards the notices issued by the AO. Needless to say that the AO will allow reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assesse. ITA No.1475, 1476 & 1477 /Chny/2024 :- 4 -: 6.0 We noted that the assesse was provided many opportunities by both the authorities

Modern Facility and Security Management, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-19(6), Chennai

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1475/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1475, 1476 & 1477/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Modern Facility & Security The Income Tax Officer, Management, Non-Corporate Ward-19(6), C/O.Moses Ravikumar, Sabari Nivas, Chennai. No.10, Gurudeva Nagar, Iaf Road, East Tambaram, Selaiyur Post, Chennai. [Pan: Aarfm7280R] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri J.Saravanan, Advocate, प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Dr.Samuel Pitta, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2024

For Appellant: Shri J.Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr.Samuel Pitta, JCIT
Section 144Section 148Section 250

directed to make complete and correct compliance towards the notices issued by the AO. Needless to say that the AO will allow reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assesse. ITA No.1475, 1476 & 1477 /Chny/2024 :- 4 -: 6.0 We noted that the assesse was provided many opportunities by both the authorities

Kpspl 76 Valarpuram Paccs Ltd., Kanchipuram vs. ITO, Ward-1, Kanchipuram

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

ITA 1186/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1186/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Kpspl 76 Valarpuram Paccs Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Valarpuram Village & Post, Ward 1, Sriperumbedur Taluk, Kancheepuram. Kanchipuram 603 105. [Pan: Aabak4915C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate & Shri B. Sakthivel, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 14.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.02.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017- 18. 2. At The Outset, We Note That The Assessing Officer Found Cash Deposits In The Accounts Of The Assessee During Demonetization Period.

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69ASection 80P

deduction under section 80P of the Act and concluded the assessment under section 144 of the Act is not correct without affording adequate opportunity of being heard in respect of addition under section 69A of the Act. He also submits that the assessee is ready to furnish all the details