“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

Kenchegowda Bommalingegowda, Mathikere vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 346/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri.T.S.Rajan, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Gale, Standing Counsel

Section 147Section 250Section 50CSection 92

substantial cause of justice. Being so, we are of the opinion that since the order passed by the authorities are without affording proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee, we remit the issue in dispute to the file of the AO for fresh consideration. The assessee is directed

Western Digital Technologies Inc., United States of America vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, (International Taxation), Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 343/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal

Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)

Without prejudice to the ground that the Assessee does not have a PE in India, the Ld. AO erred in not providing an opportunity of being heard before attributing 30% of the sales to India as business income. 5. Interest under sections 234A

Mr. Muppuri Damodar, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(5), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the above observations

ITA 1231/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeymuppuri Damodar The Income Tax Officer #26/1, 7Th Main, Sb Colony Ward - 7(2)(5) Bsk Iii Stage, 7Th Block Vs. Bengaluru Bengaluru 560085 Pan – Ahppd9356E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 25.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 09.02.2024 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2003-24/1060723928(1) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.. 2. The Learned Cit[A] Is Not Justified In Dismissing The Appeal As Not- Admitted On The Ground That The Applicable Advance Tax Has Not Been Paid By The Appellant Before The Filing Of The Present Appeal Under The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel

Section 148Section 149Section 234ASection 249Section 250Section 69A

merits of the case. Needless to say, the CIT(Appeals) shall in the course of the set-aside proceedings afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.” 11. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and relying on the above decision in the case of Vishnusharan Chandravanshi (supra ... direction to dispose of the appeal after considering the merits of the case. Needless to say that the CIT(A) shall provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8 Muppuri Damodar 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms

Sri. Shankar Souhardha Pattina Sahakari Niyamit, Gulbarga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1& Tps, Gulbarga

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

ITA 1182/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Atul Alur, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sneha Sahai, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 156Section 2(24)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69ASection 80P

that would be essential and required for substantiating his case and for proper adjudication by the revenue authorities. Needless to say that reasonable opportunity of being heard be given to the assessee. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the proceedings and in case of further default, the assessee shall

Giju Varghese, Mysore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)& Tps, Mysuru

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

ITA 1117/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Soundararajan K. (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Deepa Khare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., JCIT-DR

Section 10(10)Section 10(14)Section 144Section 148Section 24Section 80C

order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the issue to his file for deciding the appeal on merits after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and also after considering the various documents filed by the assessee in support of his case, in accordance with

Debasish Banerjee, Kolkata vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

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

ITA 456/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sarveshwar Sharma, C.A. & Ms. ShrutiFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. D/R

Section 143(3)

computation of income and allow the claim of the assessee. Needless to say that the assessee be afforded reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 31 July, 2024 at Mumbai. (NARENDER

Late Darayas Pardiwala, Vadodara vs. Addl. CIT, Circle 35(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2878/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Late Darayas Pardiwala (On His Add. Cit, Circle 35(1), Behalf, Legal Heir Pearl Unwalla), C-12, Bkc, Bandra East, Vs. Yagnesh Desai & Co. S09, Mumbai-400051. Indiabulls Mega Mall, Jetalpur Road, Akota, Vadodara-390020. Pan No. Acvpp 5358 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Yagnesh Deasi

submitted that this order has been passed ex order has been passed ex-parte qua the assessee without the assessee without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard and therefore, viding sufficient opportunity of being heard and therefore, viding sufficient opportunity of being heard and therefore, appeal may be restored back

Film Set Light Spot Welfare Society, Mumbai vs. Exem. Ward 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for sult, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for sult, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2832/MUM/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mr. Hitesh Shah, CA (VirtuallyFor Respondent: 30/07/2024

Section 11Section 12ASection 25

these appeals have been adjudicated ex the these appeals have been adjudicated ex-parte qua the assessee parte qua the assessee without providing opportunity of being heard and therefore, same without providing opportunity of being heard and therefore, same without providing opportunity of being heard and therefore, same should

Film Set Light Spot Welfare Society, Mumbai vs. Exem. Ward 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2829/MUM/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2012-2013

For Appellant: Mr. Hitesh Shah, CA (Virtually Appeared)For Respondent: Mr. Asif Karmali, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 25Section 250

outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the these appeals have been adjudicated ex-parte qua the assessee without providing opportunity of being heard and therefore, same should be set aside and restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh

M/S Amritlal Bhabutmal HUF, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2755/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S Amritlal Bhabutmal Huf, National E-Assessment Centre, 601, Earth Baug, Princess Street, Delhi, Ito Ward 23(1)(6), Vs. 116, Shamaldas Gandhi Marg, Room No. 615, Piramal Kalbadevi, Chamber, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400002. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Aaeha 4248 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. M.B. Sanghvi

Section 250Section 44A

order u/s.250 of the Income Tax NFAC passed the order u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") without providing proper opportunity of being heard. 61 ("the Act") without providing proper opportunity of being heard. 61 ("the Act") without providing proper opportunity of being heard. The learned

Jatin Narendra Joshi, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2245/MUM/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Jatin Narendra Joshi, Ito 25(1)(1), 401, 4Th Floor, Embassy Building, Kautilya Bhavan, Vs. Bhakti Park, Wadala Link Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Near Imax Big Cinema, Mumbai. Wadala East, Mumbai-400037. Pan No. Aabpj 8856 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Mehul Shah

Section 69

proved and not submitted, w submitted, without making any appropriate inquiry and, ithout making any appropriate inquiry and, without providing the opportunity of being heard. without providing the opportunity of being heard. 3. On the facts, and in circumstances of the case, and in 3. On the facts ... inquiry and without providing the making any appropriate inquiry and without providing the making any appropriate inquiry and without providing the opportunity of opportunity of being heard. 2. At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that

Jayprakash Ramchandra Shinde, Mumbai vs. Ward-28(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2196/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Jayprakash Ramchandra Shinde Ward 28(1)(4), Flat No. 1, Gr Flr Plot No. 135/A, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Sector-6, Sarsole Nerul, Bandra (East), Navi Mumbai-400706. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Bccps 4784 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Bhupendra Shah

Section 143(2)Section 234Section 271

thereafter decide the issue in accordance with law after affording the thereafter decide the issue in accordance with law after affording the Assessee opportunity of being heard to submit the relevant documents ssee opportunity of being heard to submit the relevant documents ssee opportunity of being heard to submit

St. Xaviers Vile Parle Alumni Association, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai

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

ITA 1874/MUM/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year: 2024-25

For Appellant: Shri MukeshFor Respondent: Shri B. Laxmi Kanth, Sr. DR

Section 80G(5)

force upto 31/03/2024. 6. Ld. CIT (Exemption) erred in passing the order for rejection of application under S. 80(G) without granting an opportunity of being heard in respect of the ground of rejection. 7. Without prejudice, the appellant beg for pardon and pray the Hon'ble bench

Gamila Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Nafc, Delhi

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

ITA 4718/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Narender Kimar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2014-15 Gamila Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Nfac, Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Tulsiyan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to dispose the appeal on merits of the case after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant. ii. The Learned CIT(A) erred in not disposing various grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. That on the facts

Rahul Chandrakant Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, all these appeals are allowed in accordance with the above direction

ITA 4513/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant Modi, CA &For Respondent: Shri Manish Sareen, CIT, DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 153Section 153A

various notices issued and upload responses for the submission during the assessment proceedings and appeal proceedings. The Appellant submits that an opportunity of being heard be given as a matter of natural justice. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellant submits that

Youre Wonderful Project, Delhi vs. CIT(Exemption), Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 730/DEL/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Sh. Priyansh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

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

Income Tax Exemptions ("Ld. CIT(E)") has erred in not granting registration u/s 80G(5)(iii) is hereby rejected without granting proper opportunity of being heard. 2. On the facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per the provisions of the law, Ld. CIT(E) has erred ... Exemptions ("Ld. CIT(E)") has erred in cancelling registration granted u/s 12AB r.w.s. 12A(1)(ac)(iii) is hereby rejected without granting proper opportunity of being heard. 2. On the facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per the provisions of the law, Ld. CIT(E) has erred

Youre Are Wounderful Project, Delhi vs. CIT(Exemption), Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 729/DEL/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Sh. Priyansh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

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

Nivesh Group, Delhi vs. Assessment Unit, National Facless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine as infructuous

ITA 561/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usvs. Assessment Unit Nivesh Group Block-F, Sector – 12, Dwarka, National Faceless Assessment Delhi-110 075 Centre, Delhi-110 001 Pan No. Aamfn 1544 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pranshu Singhal, C.A. Revenue By Shri Govind Singhal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 25.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.07.2024 Order Per Pradip Kumar Kedia, Am :

Section 144Section 144BSection 263

case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in passing the order without giving assessee an opportunity of being heard in violation of the principle of natural justice. (ii) That the non- appearance before the Ld. CIT(A) was due to reasons beyond the control

Akshay Sabharwal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Gurugram

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

ITA 3532/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”

Section 143(2)Section 144

this issue may be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh Akshay Sabharwal vs. ITO adjudication after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. On the other hand, the DR objected to the above submissions and submitted that the assessee is not complied ... inclined to remit this issue back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue on merit after giving proper opportunities of being heard to the assessee. We direct the assessee to comply and cooperate with the authorities. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Abhay Rai, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 36(1), Delhi

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

ITA 3486/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: the disposal of the same in the interest of substantial justice to the assessee.”

Section 139Section 139(5)Section 144Section 145(3)

being challenged on facts and law. 2. Because the action is being challenged on facts and law for not providing reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessment order Abhay Rai vs. ITO being passed is in violation of the principle of natural justice and without giving adequate time and opportunity ... inclined to remit this issue back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue on merit after giving proper opportunities of being heard to the assessee. We direct the assessee to comply and cooperate with the authorities without taking any adjournment Abhay Rai vs. ITO Accordingly