“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

Women Sports Foundation, Karnal vs. ITO, Chandigarh

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

ITA 777/CHANDI/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Aug 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.777/Chd/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2022-23 Women Sports Vs. The Cit, बनाम Exemption, Foundation, Chandigarh Kbc-4 Chd City, Sector 45, Karnal, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aaaaw3913F ""यथ"/Repsondent अपीलाथ"/Appellant ( Virtual Hearing ) िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By : None राज"वक"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2024 उदघोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.08.2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 253Section 80GSection 80G(5)

appellant. 2. That the Learned officer has cancelled the application of Final Registration u/s 80G of Income Tax Act without giving proper opportunity of Being Heard. 3. That the Learned officer has neither send any notice in physical copy nor any e-mail & order has been passed by learned officer ... without giving proper opportunity of being heard. Since no communication is received from learned officer therefore assessee is not aware of any notice issued by the learned officer. 4. That the assessee had requested to accept the appeal and condone the delay in filing the appeal because neither any communication

Women Sports Foundation, Karnal vs. CIT Exemption, Chandigarh

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

ITA 776/CHANDI/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Aug 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.776/Chd/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2022-23 Vs. The Cit, Women Sports बनाम Exemption, Foundation, Chandigarh Kbc-4 Chd City Sector 45, Karnal, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aaaaw3913F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Repsondent ( Virtual Hearing ) िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By : None राज"वक"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2024 उदघोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12 .08.2024 आदेश/Order Perparesh M. Joshi, Jm :

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 253

appellant. 2. That the Learned officer has cancelled the application of Final Registration u/s 12 AB of Income Tax Act without giving proper opportunity of Being Heard. 3. That the Learned officer has neither send any notice in physical copy nor any e-mail & order has been passed by learned ... officer without giving proper opportunity of being heard. Since no communication is received from learned officer therefore assessee is not aware of any notice issued by the learned officer. 4. That the assessee had requested to accept the appeal and condone the delay in filling the appeal because neither

I M C of I T I, Arvalli vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 597/AHD/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2024

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Division Bench, Ahmedabad

For Appellant: None(Adjournment Application-Rejected)For Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 253(3)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

allowed to add or alter or modify the ground of appeal. PRAYER 1. To instruct the Ld. CIT(exemption) to give opportunity for being heard and allow for registration process u/s. 12A. 2. We may be allowed to add or alter or modify the ground of appeal. 3. To give ... allowed to add or alter or modify the ground of appeal. PRAYER 1. To instruct the Ld. CIT(exemption) to give opportunity for being heard and allow for registration process u/s. 80G(5). 2. We may be allowed to add or alter or modify the ground of appeal

I M C of I T I, Arvalli vs. The CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 596/AHD/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2024

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Division Bench, Ahmedabad

For Appellant: None(Adjournment Application-Rejected)For Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 253(3)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

Makevale Acrylics Private Limited, Vadodara vs. The ADIT, CPC Bengaluru Present Juridiction the DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 566/AHD/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.566/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2021-22 Makevale Acrylics Pvt.Ltd. The Adit, Cpc Bengaluru बनाम/ 372, 373, 374, 1,2 Sankarda Present Jurisdiction - Bhadarwa Road The Dcit, Circle-2(1)(1), V/S. At Moxi, Tal.Savli, Vadodara – 390 007 Vadodara- 391 780 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aafcm 2737 E अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Amrin Pathan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashok Natha Bhalekar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 08/08/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/08/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Dated 27/05/2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)” In Short] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 13/11/2022 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Makevale Acrylics Pvt.Ltd. Vs. The Adit, Cpc Bengaluru Present Jurisdiction The Dcit, Circle-2(1)1A) Asst. Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Natha Bhalekar, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

from the end of the month in which this Circular is issued, whichever is later. The AO is directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and to verify the compliance of the procedural requirements as stipulated. This direction is issued in conformity with the legislative

Saket M Jain (HUF), Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 314/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Division Bench, Ahmedabad Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Dated 24.03.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi U/S.250 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961

For Appellant: None(Adjournment Application-Rejected)For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 145Section 250

under:- “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC. Delhi has erred in passing an Ex Parte order without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant hence the same being against the principles of natural justice and equity requires to be quashed. 2. The learned Commissioner

Satyanarayana Shyamlate, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 312/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Sri V. Siva Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, 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

Anjana Chaudhury, Guwahati vs. ACIT, Cir. (1), Kolkata

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

ITA 881/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 115BSection 144Section 234Section 68

also violated the principle of natural justice by not judicially considering the submissions of the appellant and without allowing an opportunity of being heard. 6. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Assessing Officer has erred in levying interest under section 234.A and 234B

Deen Dayal Medical and Educational Trust, Thiruvallur vs. Addl. CIT, Chennai

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

ITA 3331/CHNY/2016[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Aug 2024

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

Section 12A

assessee first of all stated that there is gross violation of principles of natural justice in cancelling the registration granted without providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ld.counsel for the assessee took us through para 8.1 & 9 of the impugned order, which reads as under:- “8.1 Referring ... Trustee of the trust is in prison, it was requested that no adverse order against the trust may be passed with out giving opportunity of being heard in person to the Managing Trustee. On this date, on request made to the AR to furnish copies of show cause notice issued

Banyan Tree Diagnostics and Research Centre, R T Nagar vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 595/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeybanyan Tree Diagnositc & Ito, Ward - 6(3)(1) Research Centre Bmtc Building No. 10, 1St Main, 1St Cross Koramangala Vs. Bangalore 560095 Devegowda Road, R.T. Nagar Bangalore 560032 Pan – Aapfb7186F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Sridhar, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 11.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.08.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M.

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

justice, set aside and restore the grounds of appeal to the ld. CIT(A) to reconsider the grounds of Appeal after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We are of the opinion that merely on the technical ground, the appeal before the CIT(A) cannot be dismissed

Lakkondahalli Narayanappa Narayanaswamy, Hoskote vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1364/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Subramanya Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR

decide the issue Page 4 of 4 ITA Nos. 1065 & 1364/Bang/2024 on merits in accordance with law. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to assessee. Accordingly, the grounds raised by assessee in both the appeals stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. In the result

Lakkondahalli Narayanappa Narayanaswamy, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1065/BANG/2024[2018-19,2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Aug 2024

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Subramanya Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR

Smt. Pawan Paras Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, ground number 6 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed with above direction, in view of this, other grounds are not required to be adjudicated hence dismissed

ITA 471/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: BeforeShri Prashant Maharishi( (Accountant Member)

Section 10Section 131Section 143Section 68

main grievance of the assessee is that (1) the learned CIT – A has passed an ex parte appellate order without giving adequate opportunity of being heard and (2) confirming the addition of ₹ 3,152,330/- without granting an opportunity to cross examine the persons whose testimony was relied upon

Priority Jewels Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), Appeals

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 3196/Mum/2024 is

ITA 3196/MUM/2024[AY 2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2024

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 246ASection 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Private Limited 1.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the GIT (Appeals) erred in not providing opportunity of being heard to the appellant company or its authorized representative throughout the appellate proceedings which is against the procedure narrated in section ... decision of appeal without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard to appellant is violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the decision of appeal stands invalid and order passed u/s. 250 of the act stands invalid. 1.3 The appellant wishes to submit the snapshot of the Income Tax Portal

Kpmg Assurance and Consulting Services LLP, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle-16(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 5 & 6 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2415/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Assessing Officer in this regard, in case the CIT(A) so desires. It is clarified that the Assessee would be granted a reasonable opportunity of being heard as per law. All right and contentions of the Assessee are left open. 18. United Stated of America (USA) 18.1. The professional ... Assessing Officer in this regard, in case the CIT(A) so desires. It is clarified that the Assessee would be granted a reasonable opportunity of being heard as per law. All right and contentions of the Assessee are left open. 20. Nigeria & Poland 20.1. The professional fee paid/payable

Kpmg Assurance and Consulting Services LLP, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle-16(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 5 & 6 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2414/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Kpmg Assurance and Consulting Services LLP, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle-16(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 5 & 6 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2413/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Kpmg Assurance and Consulting Services LLP, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -16(2), Mumbai

ITA 2411/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

DCIT, Cir 16(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Kpmg Assurance and Consulting Services LLP, Mumbai

ITA 2277/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

DCIT, Cir 16(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Kpmg Assurance and Consulting Services LLP, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 5 & 6 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2274/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)