← 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

Patel Inn and Travels Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Jt.CIT(OSD), Circle-3(1)(1), Now the ITO Ward-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 814/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 814/Ahd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) िनधा"रण वष" Patel Inn & Travels The Jt.Cit(Osd) बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad Private Limited Vs. 59, Op. Rural Police Head Quarters, B/H. S. G. Now The Ito, Ward- Highway, Makarba Road, 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380054 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcp9068M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri J L Bhatia, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25/07/2024 29/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 22.08.2023 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Original Return Of Income For A.Y. 2011-12 Was Filed By The Assessee On 30.09.2011 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.81,08,580/-. Subsequently, The Assessee Had Filed A Revised Return On 17.02.2012 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.68,93,150/-. The Assessment Was

For Respondent: Shri J L Bhatia, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 154(3)Section 156

much as the order u/s. 154 is passed in violation of provisions of Section 154(3) ie without giving the Appellant the opportunity of being heard. (5) The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal of the assessee in as much

Majhar Ismail Hashmi Sayad, Parbhani vs. Income Tax Officer & Tps, Parbhani

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

ITA 783/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.783/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Majhar Ismail Hashmi Vs. Ito & Tps, Parbhani. Sayad, Near Datta Mandir, Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani- 431514. Pan : Bzhps1440M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Umashankar Prasad Date Of Hearing : 22.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.12.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Lower Authorities Erred In Passing Ex-Parte Order & Erred In Deciding The Issue Only On The Basis Of Material Available With Them, This Action Is Being Violative Of Principal Of Natural Justice. Your Appellant Prays For Granting Opportunity Of Hearing Before Lower Authorities. Without Prejudice To The Above Grounds Of Appeal, Following Grounds Are Also Taken On Merit:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Umashankar Prasad
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 274Section 69Section 69A

providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. LD CIT(A)/NFAC shall decide the appeal as per facts & law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notice issued by ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and submit

Bayjabaishamrao Nikam, Nashik vs. ACIT, Circle 2, Nashik

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

ITA 742/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.742/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Bayjabai Shamrao Nikam, Vs. Acit, Circle-2, Nashik. Ghar No.844, Near Ramsetu Bridge, Gangaghat, Murlidhar Koat, Nikam Wada, Panchwati, Nashik- 422003 Pan : Amypn0716G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi Revenue By : Smt. Umashankar Prasad Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.07.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1] The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.22,00,000 Made By The A.O. In The Assessment Order Passed U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 By Treating Entire Cash Deposits Made During The Year Under Consideration As Unexplained Income Without Appreciating That The Said Addition Is Not Justified On Facts & In Law.

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Smt. Umashankar Prasad
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

that the matter may please be set aside to the file of CIT(A)/ A.O. for fresh adjudication on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6] The appellant craves leave to add/ alter/ amend any of the grounds of appeal” 3. The facts ... after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to 5 the assessee. Ld AO shall pass the order as per facts & law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notice issued by ld. AO and submit the requisite details

Kalu Jat, Ajmer vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Ajmer

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

ITA 747/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon,Ble Itat, Jaipur Bench On 07.12.2023 Against The Ex-Parte Order Passed By Ld. Cit(Appeals) Nfac, New Delhi, Order Dated 07.09.2023. The Appeal No. Is Ita No. 747/Jpr/2023. 2. The Present Appeal Was Filed With A Delay Of 31 Days. 3. That The Delay In Filing Of Appeal Was Due To Mistake Of Earlier Local Counsel Of Appellant, As He Did Not Filed The Appeal Well Within The Specified Time. 4. Then, On 06.12.2023, Appellant Engaged A New Counsel Of Jaipur, Ca Raghuveer Singh Poonia & On The Very Next Day The New Counsel Filed The Appeal Before Hon'Ble Itat, Jaipur Bench. 5. Therefore, The Delay In Filing Of Appeal Was Due To Mistake Of Earlier Counsel Of Appellant, Which Can Be Treated As Reasonable Cause & Bonafide Mistake Of Appellant In Good Faith In Filing The Appeal Before Hon'Ble Itat, Jaipur Bench. In View Of Above Submission Your Good Self Are Request That Kindly Consider This As Reasonable Cause To Condone The Delay & Kindly Admit The Appeal. So The Substantial Justice May Be Delivered To The Appellant." 2.2 The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Appearing In This Appeals Submitted That The Delay Of 31 Days Is On Account Of Due To Mistake Of Earlier Local Counsel Of The Assessee, As He Did Not Inform The Assessee In Proper Time & Subsequently The Assessee Engaged A New Counsel On The Very Next Day & Filed The Appeal. Considering The Various Judicial Precedent Where In The Courts Has Considered That Change Of The New Counsel Is A Reasonable Reason & Has Considered The Delay. Even The Hon'Ble 3

Section 148ASection 56(2)(i)Section 69

prayed that the Id. CIT(A) and the AO both have passed the ex-parte order and the assessee was not provided adequate opportunity of being heard. Thus, the assessee may be provided one more opportunity to advance his arguments/submissions before the ld. AO on 8 ITA No. 747/JPR/2023