“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

Ram Singh Through Legal Heir Ajay Singh Chauhan, Alwar vs. ITO WD1(1), Alwar

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 445/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Section 147Section 250

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Id. CIT(A) erred in adjudicating the appeal, without providing adequate opportunity of being heard. It is therefore prayed that order passed by Id. CIT(A) is against the principles of natural justice and deserves to be held ... every ground and merits of the case and merely dismissed for Delay of 69 days only. Hence, ld.AR requested for one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 2.2 The ld.AR submitted that ld.CIT(A) has passed the order in the name of assessee Mr.Ram Singh on 09.02.2024, whereas

Bijadi Vitta Geetha, Shiralkoppa vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2, Shivamogga

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

ITA 1089/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18 Ms. Bijadi Vitta Geetha, The Income Tax # 2856, Gandhinagar, Officer, 1St Cross, Ward – 2, Shiralkoppa, Shivamogga. Karnataka – 577 428. Vs. Pan: Bsupg8856K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Varun Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Advocate, Standing

Section 68

back to the Ld.AO to carry out necessary verification having regard to the evidences furnished by the assessee. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to assessee. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, the appeal

Mahesh Vrajlal Babaria, Mumbai vs. Income Tax-Officer, Circle-18(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed in the above terms

ITA 1867/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Amarjit Singh & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 271

1867/Mum/2024 Mahesh Vrajlal Babaria; A.Y. 2009-10 a. That the Ld. CIT(A) was erred in not granting proper, effective and fair opportunity of being heard while passing the appellate order, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is therefore bad and illegal as the same is framed in breach

Saffron Inc, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 31(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 1789/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri PiyushChhajedFor Respondent: Shri Laxmi Kanth, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 250

NFAC) erred in passing an order u/s 250 r.w.s 254 confirming the additions made by the Learned Assessing Officer without giving an adequate opportunity of being heard. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC) erred in confirming the addition

Rohan Bloodstock Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 5(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1761/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Ravi GanatraFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271Section 37(1)Section 69C

passing the assessment order and dismissing the appeal in limine in gross violation of principal of natural justice, without affording any effective opportunity of being heard. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred ... granting at least one opportunity of being heard after 'Enablement of Communication Window' on 02.11.2022, post which no hearing notice was issued and an ex-parte order u/s 250 dated 09.02.2024 was passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) on the basis of non- compliance to notices issued

Nidhi Prashant Asrani, Mumbai vs. Ward 42(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1662/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Biradar, A/RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. D/R

Nidhi Enterprise and the AO is directed to verify the same and decide the issue afresh after affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 11th July

Shri Rugnath Khodidas Panchal, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 31(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1657/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. D/R

with a direction to decide the appeal on merits of the I.T.A. No. 1657/Mum/2024 2 case after properly serving notice and affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 3. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 11th

M/S Mahalaxmi Engineering Company Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1583/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

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

For Respondent: Mr. K Shivram

Section 143(3)Section 37

file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh after taking into consideration submission of the assessee and after providing adequate opportunity of being heard. 7. On the contrary, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has already decided the issue on merit and no such

Thiruvengadathan Pakshi Rajan, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 35(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1260/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahaveer Jain, A/RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. D/R

Section 148Section 234ASection 69B

file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal on merits of the case after affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 11th

Raniben Khimji Patel, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 19(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1227/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Hiral Savla, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 57

confirming the disallowance of the interest expense amounting to Rs.41,76,081/- u/s 57 of the Act and be directed to provide adequate opportunity of being heard in view of unforeseen facts and circumstances of the case 3. Your assessee prays that- a. CIT(A) order to be treated

Bajrang Lal Muhal, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward 2(1)(5), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 2408/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyabajrang Lal Muhal, Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1)(5), 973/B, Shalimar Garden Extn. 1, Ghaziabad. Sahibabad, Ghaziabad – 201 005 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Aompm4148M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Upadhyay, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Order : 11.07.2024 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 10.06.2023 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. The Assessment Order Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer Is Bad In Law. 2. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Has Erred In Making Addition Of Rs.10,19,548/- As Unexplained Investment Without Considering The Fact, Circumstances & Materials Available On Record. 3. Hon’Ble Cit (A) Has Erred In Confirming The Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer Without Considering The Fact, Circumstances & Material Available On Record.” 3. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 15 Days In Filing The Appeal. The Delay Is Attributable Due To The Health Problem Of The Legal

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Upadhyay, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69

remit the issue to the file of AO. AO shall consider the issue afresh and pass appropriate order after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 11th

Stryker India Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-22(2), Delhi

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

ITA 817/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarstryker India Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, Circle 22 (2), C-5, Sda Commercial Complex, Delhi. Delhi – 110 016. (Pan : Aaecs2513F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravi Sharma, Advocate Ms. Shruti Khimta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Zafrul Haque Tanweer, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Order : 11.07.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 28.01.2022 Pursuant To The Directions Issued By The Ld. Drp For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :-

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Zafrul Haque Tanweer, CIT DR

Section 234BSection 270ASection 271Section 92C

file of AO/TPO to properly apply the DRP’s directions on this issue and decide as per law after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 11th