“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

Shubhradeep Nigam, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward 2 (2)(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 3735/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Vimal Kumarita Nos. 3734 & 3735/Del/2023 Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Shubhradeep Nigam, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2)(3), 1206, Gaur Global Village, Ghaziabad Crossing Republik U.P. 201 002 Chipiyana, Ghaziabad U.P. – 201 106 (Pan: Acbpn9476A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Vineet Garg, Ca. Respondent By : Shri Ram Dhan Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ram Dhan Meena, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 250

application of mind. 2. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in passing the order without granting sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant before passing the order under section 250 which is against the principles of natural justice. 3. That ... application of mind. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in passing the order without granting sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant before passing the order under section 250 which is against the principles of natural justice. 3. That

Shubhradeep Nigam, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward 2(2)(3), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 3734/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ram Dhan Meena, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 250

Akansha Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-04, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3074/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2021-22]

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 153DSection 250Section 45Section 55ASection 69C

case, the learned CIT(A) 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. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both

Adm Agro Industries Kota & Akola Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 51/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Roym/S. Adm Agro Industries Kota & Vs. Dcit, Circle 1 (1), Akola Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. Third Floor, Vatika Professional Point, Golf Course Extension Road, Sector – 66, Gurgaon – 122 018 (Haryana). (Pan : Aabcs9646L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocate Shri Utkarsh Kr. Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Amisha Gupt, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Order : 10.07.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)-I, New Delhi Dated 05.11.2019 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. That, In View Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer ('Ao') Dated 30.12.2017 U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act,1961 ('The Act'), As Upheld By Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ('Cit(A)') Dated 05.11.2019 & Also The Additions

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

consider the additional evidences and after duly considering the same, he should pass appropriate order. Needless to add, assessee should be given adequate opportunity of being heard. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 10th

Ericsson India Global Services Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Spl. Range 3, New Delhi

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

ITA 2368/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 234BSection 90Section 92C

case & in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in disallowing the claim of Foreign tax credit without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 2.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred on facts in stating that the assessee has not been able to demonstrate whether

Raghbir Singh, United States vs. Circle-1, Int, Chandigarh

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

ITA 474/CHANDI/2023[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jul 2024

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parmod Singal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 5

have erred in fact, in law and circumstances 3. of the case by issuing ex-parte orders without giving the Appellant sufficient opportunity of being heard, merely on ground of non-appearance by the Appellant, and not adjudicating the assessment and appeal proceedings on merit with the material already available

Kai Mahdevekrao Baburao Autade Pratishthan, Solapur vs. CIT Exemption Circle, Pune

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

ITA 572/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

line with the CBDT’s circular no.7/2024 dated 25.04.2024 (supra). Needless to say, the ld. CIT(E) shall give due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue as per fact and law. We hold & direct accordingly. Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Kharadi Jain Samaj Trust, Pune vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Pune

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

ITA 339/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvnesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar

Section 12(1)(ac)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 2

test the veracity or otherwise thereof. This will meet the ends of justice. Of course, the Ld. CIT(E) shall afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We order accordingly. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

Solapur Construction & Fabrication Pvt Ltd, Solapur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Range-63, Solapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 198/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.197 & 198/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2019-20 Solapur Construction & Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Solapur. Fabrication Pvt. Ltd., E-1, Mantrichandak Park, Opp. Mayur Mangal Karyalaya Bijapur Road, Solapur- 413004. Pan : Aaccs5566L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Piyush Bafna & Shri Aakash Parakh Revenue By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastava Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 06.12.2023 & 14.02.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2019-20 Respectively. 2. Since Both The Appeals Were Heard Together, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of Both The Appeals By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.197/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2017-18 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Bafna &For Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava

Section 143(3)Section 40

after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. LD CIT(A)/NFAC shall pass order as per facts & law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to respond on the date fixed for hearing & explain his case without taking adjournment under ... after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. LD CIT(A)/NFAC shall pass order as per facts & law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to respond on the date fixed for hearing & explain his case without taking adjournment under

Sollapur Construction & Fabrication Pvt Ltd, Solapur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Solapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 197/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Bafna &For Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava

Section 143(3)Section 40

Maa Sankalp Buildcon, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 14 (1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 116/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

second proviso to sec.40A(3) of the Act and decide the issue as per 6 fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, appeal

Waheeduddin Khaja Moinuddin, Hyderabad vs. ITO (Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

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

ITA 458/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.458/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 ) Shri Waheeduddin Khaja Vs. Ito (International Moinuddin Taxation) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Dgopm7707P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Sashank Dundu, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt.Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 09/07/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.02.2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-10, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Did Not File His Return Of Income For The A.Y 2017-18 U/S 139(1) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. On The Basis Of Statement Of Financial Transaction Filed By The Banks In The Wake Of Demonetization, There Was Information Available With The Department That The Assessee Has Page 1 Of 4

For Appellant: Shri Sashank Dundu, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Smt.Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 156Section 69A

Page 3 of 4 ITA 458 of 2024 Waheeduddin Khaja Moinuddin with a direction to re-consider the issue afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court

Vb Seva Trust, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 40, Kolkata

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

ITA 70/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthiita Nos.69 & 70/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2013-14 V B Seva Trust Acit, Circle-40, Kolkata. C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Vs. Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069. (Pan: Aaatv2344Q) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Paul, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 250

granted and the issues be restored to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication upon providing reasonable AYs 2011-12 & 2013-14 opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Ld. DR on the other hand, opposed the prayer of the assessee. 3. We have heard rival contentions and gone through ... speaking order after considering the submissions and explanations and documents furnished by the assessee. Needless to say that assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. We also direct the assessee to be diligent and not to seek adjournment unless warranted by compelling reasons for expeditious disposal of the appeal

Vb Seva Trust, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 40, Kolkata

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

ITA 69/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Paul, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 250

Pukhraj Jain HUF, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Mumbai

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

ITA 900/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chaturvedi, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma, CIT, D/R

issues to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal afresh after affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee by serving notice at the correct e-mail id. The assessee is directed to provide its correct e-mail

Urja Education Society, Alibaug vs. ITO Exemption Ward, Thane

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

ITA 2860/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhvs. Ito, Exemption Ward, Urja Education Society 208/209, 2Nd Floor, 1, Sai Anandi Apartment, Quershi Mansion, Ramnath Nagar, Teen Haath Naka, Alibaug, Thane – 400602. Raigad-400055, Maharashtra. Maharashtra. Pan/Gir No. Aaaau2857J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Said addition confirmed is bad in law and liable to be deleted as order is passed without opportunity of being heard and violating the principles of natural justice. 2 Urja Education Society, Mumbai 2 On facts and circumstances, Ld. CIT(A) has erred

Amit Savlaram Parte, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 2281/MUM/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Chothani, C.AFor Respondent: ShriManoj Kumar Sinha (SR.DR.)

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 144rSection 234Section 250

principles of natural justice while passing the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act inter alianot giving a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in assessing the Assessed Income at Rs.5.45,41,780/- as against returned

Roselabs Finance Limited, Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Range-7, Mumbai

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

ITA 1615/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sahil ShahFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 250Section 269SSection 271DSection 4Section 5

order of the ld. CIT(A) is set aside and matter is restored back. Needless to say, that assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard to substantiate its claim. Accordingly, ground taken by the assessee in this respect is allowed. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee

Ranjitsingh Premsingh Rawal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 41(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1482/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Ramchandran, A/RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. D/R

Section 249(4)(b)Section 68Section 69A

accordingly appeal is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to be decided afresh on merits after affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court

Mansha Ramchandra Singh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 42(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1253/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Mr. Gunjan Kakkad, A/RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. D/R

directed to decide the appeal on merits of the case after affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 9th July, 2024 at Mumbai. (RAHUL CHAUDHARY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER