“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

Janaki Thangam Educational Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-3, Chennai

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

ITA 1351/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri G.Seetharaman, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 143(3)

parte and no adjudication on merits despite grounds raised by assessee. He stated that the CIT(A) has not allowed reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, as only effectively two opportunities have been provided i.e., on 07.09.2022 and 13.10.2023. He stated that the last date of hearing ... contested setting aside the order of CIT(A). 4. We noted from the order of CIT(A) that reasonable opportunity of being heard was not provided to assessee and it was fixed three times i.e., 31.12.2020, during Covid period and thereafter only two times on 07.09.2022 & 13.10.2023. According

Parasmal Jain Bilaspuriya (Barjatya) Parmarthik Charitable Trust (Nyas), Tonk vs. CIT(Exemption), Jaipur

ITA 780/JPR/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2024-25

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Bhardwaj-DR (V.C.)

Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

that religious trusts are not eligible under section 80G(5)(iii) of the Act. But, as we are going to discuss hereinafter, reasonable opportunity of being heard was not granted to the applicant before disposal of the application, and the matter needs to be remanded. Therefore, having regard ... include any purpose the whole or substantially the whole of which is of a religious nature, the applicant trust deserved reasonable opportunity of being heard. But, as noticed above, reasonable opportunity cannot be said to have been granted to the applicant trust before the application came to be rejected

Reena Mathur, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer, Ajmer

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 78/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Satish Shivnani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 1Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 271(1)(b)

notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act by the 6 Reena Mathur vs. ITO AO. Even during the appellate proceedings, despite granting opportunity of being heard, the appellant has not bothered to furnish documentary evidence to prove that she was prevented by any reasonable cause to claim immunity

Sunil Chablani, Ajmer, Rajasthan vs. Circle (Intl Tax), Jaipur, Rajasthan

ITA 68/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya &For Respondent: Shri Anil Dhaka (CIT-DR)

Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 45

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Ram Ratan Jangir, Amer vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -7(2), Jaipur

In the result ground no. 1 raised by the

ITA 550/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Anoop Bhatiya, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is reiterated here in below: Decision “The appellant was given fresh opportunity of being heard vide letters dated 07.10.2023 and 11.03.2024. The submission of the appellant has been considered and the appeal is decided below: Ground

Baroda Rajasthan Khestriya Gramin Bank, Ajmer vs. PCIT, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 253/JPR/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shailesh Mantri, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

provision of section 263 of the Act. Before doing so a notice dated 27.12.2023 was issued to the assessee giving an opportunity of being heard as well as requiring the assessee to furnish its submission on the issues. The assessee filed the reply dealing with the issue. The ld. PCIT ... modifying the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 25.03.2022. However, the AO is directed to ensure that ample opportunities of being heard are provided to the assessee before passing such order. 10.2 Further, it is made clear that the addition of Rs.2,17,69,052/- made

Shri. Lakshmi Pattina Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha, Harihar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Davangere

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

ITA 721/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyshri Lakshmi Pattina Sahakara The Income Tax Officer Sangha Niyamitha Ward 1 Near Renuka Mandira Temple Vs. Devangere. Harihar – 577 601. Pan – Aapas0548F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri.Sandeep Chalapathy, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 13.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Vide Din & Order No. Itba/ Nfac/S/ 250/2022-23/ 1044443368(1) Dated 03.08.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Cit(A)) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-2018. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. That The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) In So Far It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Appellant Is Bad & Erroneous In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. That The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Deciding The Appeal Ex-Parte Without Providing A 2 Shri Lakshmi Pattina Sahakara Sangh Proper Opportunity Of Being Heard By Sending The Appeal Hearing Communication Manually As Part Of Principles Of Natural Justice. 3. That The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Ought To Have Considered The Fact That The Entire Appeal Faceless Scheme Is Newly Introduced & Not All The Assessees Are Well Aware Of It & Can Acknowledge The Hearing Notices Sent Through Emails.

For Appellant: Sri.Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel

Section 115BSection 250Section 68

Appeals) erred in law and on facts in deciding the appeal ex-parte without providing a 2 Shri Lakshmi Pattina Sahakara Sangh proper opportunity of being heard by sending the appeal hearing communication manually as part of principles of natural justice. 3. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought ... assessee vehemently submitted that the ld.CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deciding the appeal ex parte without providing proper opportunity of being heard. Further, the AR of the assessee submitted that the entire appeal faceless scheme was newly introduced and not all the assessees were well aware

Shri. Nagappa R Kashiraj, Yadgir vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Yadgir

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

ITA 1118/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri G. Venkatesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT-DR

sides in the light of records placed before us. 5. We note that assessee in the present facts of the case, deserves an opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A). The Page 3 of 3 assessee is directed to furnish all the relevant details / additional evidences which shall ... considered by the Ld.CIT(A) in deciding the issues on merits. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to assessee in accordance with law. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, the appeal filed

Lalit Bhaskar Bhalerao, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, 2(5), Kalyan, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assesseeITA No

ITA 391/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi & Shri Anikesh Banerjeemr. Lalit Bhaskar Bhalerao Vs The Ito.W. 2(5), Kalyan Rom No. 25-B, 6Th Floor, Ashar It (Individual), Plot No. 56, Flat No. 101, Hansa Park, Wagale Indl, Estate, Apartment Kansai Section, Thane-400604 Ambernath East, Thane-421501 Pan : Ammpb3272D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Hetal LaghaveFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha(SRDR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 156Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275Section 44A

request your goodself to kindly keep the penalty proceeding in abeyance as the passing of the penalty order without providing me any opportunity of being heard will be against the principle of natural justice. So I request your good self to kindly provide me the Assessment order copy

Peddar Realty Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2789/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Akshay Tapadiya, D/R

with a direction to serve a proper I.T.A. No. 2789/Mum/2024 2 notice and decide the issue afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard. 4. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 22nd July

Advertising Agencies Association of India, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption ), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assesseeITA No

ITA 2370/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: ShriAmol Kirtane (CIT-DR.)

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

observance of the principles of natural justice which is implicit in the requirement cast by the Section to give the assessee an opportunity of being heard. It is in the context of the above position that this Court has repeatedly held that unlike the power of reopening an assessment under

Samrat Associates, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1935/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manish Ajudiya, Sr. A.R

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 194ASection 194CSection 250(6)Section 40

appeal: “1. The National Faceless Appeal Centre Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] has erred in dismissing the appeal without providing due opportunity of being heard. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, order passed by the CIT(A) is unjustified, illegal, against the provision

Late Kishore Bhajandas Bajaj, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-4(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1387/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyallate Kishore Bhajandas Bajaj 501, Krystal, 206, Waterfield Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai-400 050 Pan: Aacpm8648J ..... Appellant Vs. Dcit Circle 4(1) (1) R. No. 640, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Dhumne, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule, Ld. DR

Section 250Section 57

notices were received by the appellant. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the assessing officer without affording opportunity of being heard to the appellant by not sending notice of hearing either on the email.id registered in Income Tax e- filing portal or the email ... given in the appeal memo thus not affording the appellant an opportunity of being heard which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) did not giving any direction in respect

Renewed Hope Community Trust, New Panvel vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemptions Pune, Pune

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

ITA 4542/MUM/2023[NOT APPLICABLE]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm Renewed Hope Community Commissioner Of Income Trust Tax Exemption Pune 322, 3Rd Floor, Income Tax 42, Vighnaharta Enclave, Matheran Road, Office Vs. New Panvel, Pmt Building, Swargate, Navi Mumbai, Thane- Shankar Sheth Road, 410206 Pune-411037 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaetr5822

For Appellant: Mr. Rohan N. Dedhia, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Meshram, DR

Section 12A

view of the above observations, the matter is restored to the file of CIT (exemptions), for de novo consideration, after giving due opportunity of being heard and with the direction not to disentitle the assessee for grant of registration only on the grounds as mentioned in its order for rejecting ... above decision of the coordinate bench, we restore to the file of CIT (exemptions), for de novo consideration, on merits, after giving due opportunity of being heard and decide issue of grant of registration afresh. 011. In the result, Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

M/S Pranay Traders and Supplier Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Cirlcle-13(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4094/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel a/w Shri Nilesh Joshi, A/RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. D/R

Section 68

considered view that, the AO should examine the books of accounts thoroughly and decide the issue afresh after affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The AO is also directed to examine the authenticity of the bills furnished by the assessee. Accordingly, this ground is allowed

Raoul Thackersey, Mumbai vs. DCIT 12(1), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1262/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not considering the appellant's plea that the assessment was completed without giving proper opportunity of being heard and make their submissions against the additions/ disallowances made by the Assessing officer. Your appellant submits that the assessment is bad, void and illegal

Arz Unique Enterprises Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-11(1), Delhi

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

ITA 3595/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

learned CIT(A), ITD has erred both on facts and in law in passing the order exparte without providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard in violation of principle of natural justice. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), ITD has erred both ... keeping in view the additions/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, we are of the opinion that assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, in the interest of justice we are of the view that this matter should go back to the file

Anant Ehsaas Foundation, New Delhi vs. CIT (Exemption), New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 3184/DEL/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3183 & 3184/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2023-24 बनाम Anant Ehsaas Foundation Cit (Exemption) 73, Lower Ground Floor, Vs. Civic Centre, Anand Lok, Sadiq Nagar, Minto Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aalaa2452N अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 12ASection 80G(5)

years 2022-23 & 2023-24, provisional approval orders dated 10.01.2022, Form 10AB application of the assessee and pass appropriate orders after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Ld.CIT(E) if deems appropriate can call for any other details from the assessee before passing the orders

Anant Ehsaas Foundation, New Delhi vs. CIT (Exemption), New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 3183/DEL/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2024AY 2023-24

Section 12ASection 80G(5)

Purva Alloys Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Ward- 20(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2640/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)

that the CIT(A) has not decided the case on merit 10 considering the submission of the appellant/assessee. Therefore, the appellant/assessee deserves reasonable opportunity of being heard to make shortcomings or non-compliances. In view thereof, without offering any comment on merit of the case we deem ... appellant/assessee should ensure compliances during the set-aside proceeding before the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) is also required to provide reasonable opportunities of being heard to the appellant/assessee before deciding the case on merit. 10. In view of the above, each ground does not require separate & specific finding