← 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

Abdul Asif Abdul Kadir Abdul, Akola vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO Ward-1, Akola

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

ITA 400/NAG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 115BSection 148Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

year 2013–14. 2. In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:– “The order passed by CIT(A) is without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard and is therefore illegal, invalid and bad in law. 2. The order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre ... remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer and direct him to adjudicate the matter afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is also directed that the assessee should not seek adjournment without there being a justified reason. Accordingly, all the grounds

The Mangode Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Palakkad vs. ITO, Palakkad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and stay petition filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 700/COCH/2023[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Sri Suresh Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. D.R
Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

files of Ld.AO to examine the same de novo in the light of the above judgment. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard is to be granted to assess in accordance with law.” 4.2 In view of the order of the ITAT, which is identical to the facts

Kandasamy Prabhakaran, Attur vs. ITO Ward1(6), Salem

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

ITA 527/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman,CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 144Section 68Section 69A

NFAC and remand the issue back to the file of the CIT(A)-NFAC for fresh adjudication after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing

Dhandapani Rajasekar, Salem vs. DCIT Circle 1(1), Salem

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

ITA 526/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman,CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 250

order of CIT(A)-NFAC and remand the matter back to his file for fresh adjudication with a direction to allow reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass a speaking order. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order

Aanya Foundation, Kota, Rajasthan vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur, Rajasthan

In the result,the appeal of the assesseeis allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 277/JPR/2024[NOT APPLICABLE]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Jul 2024

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar CIT)
Section 12A

pertinent to mention that during the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed that he was deprived off availing adequate opportunity of being heard by the ld. CIT(E). He also submitted that in the application for registration all the details are filed. The assessee ... into the merit of the case or that of the dispute,but it is imperative that the assessee must be provided adequate opportunity of being heard 5 Aanya Foundation vs. CIT(E) by the ld. CIT(E). In this view of the matter, the Bench feels that the assessee should

Aatman Foundation Trust, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 4(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 138/JPR/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Jul 2024
For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 12A

course of hearing, the Id. AR for the assessee prayed that the Id. CIT(E) has passed the order without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Id. AR for the assessee submitted that they have submitted all the details on 31.01.2024 and on the same ... pertinent to mention that during the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed that he was deprived off availing adequate opportunity of being heard by the Id. CIT(E) in the = application for registration/recognition. We note from the records available and show cause notice were issued

Sneha Sangama Souharda Pattina Sahakari Niyamitha, Tumakur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Tumkur

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

ITA 958/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

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

Greens Natures Fresh Farms Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 246/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10Section 10(1)Section 142(1)Section 144

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

Mahesh Vasant Ghare, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 24(2)(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chamber, Lal Baug. Mumbai

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

ITA 811/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Reepal TralshwalaFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma, CIT- DR
Section 142(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

directed to consider the report of the DVO and decide the issue afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. And after confronting the report of the DVO. 6. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

Hemang Dinesh Jangla, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Department (NFAC), Delhi

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

ITA 724/MUM/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma, CIT- DR

learned CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal on merits of the case after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 01/07/2024 RAHUL

Pms Exports Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Circle 7(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1341/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Shyam AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 68

quantum addition first and then decide the appeal relating to the allowability of the interest expenses after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. PMS Export Pvt. Ltd. Order pronounced

DCIT (Ltu)-1, Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5935/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am Ι.Τ.Α. No. 5848/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Aditya Birla Nuvo Limited (Since Amalgamated With Grasim Industries Ltd.), Corporate Finance Division, A2, Aditya Birla Centre, A Wing, 2Nd Floor, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400030. Pan: Aaaci1747H Vs. The Acit- Ltu-1, World Trade Centre, 29Th Floor, Centre-1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 5935/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Dcit- Ltu-1, World Trade Centre, 29Th Floor, Centre-1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Aditya Birla Nuvo Limited (Since Amalgamated With Grasim Industries Ltd.), Corporate Finance Division, A2, Aditya Birla Centre, A Wing, 2Nd Floor, S.K. Ahire Marg, Vs. Worli, Mumbai-400030. Pan : Aaaci1747H Respondent) Appellant) Appellant/Assessee By : Shri Ronak Doshi / Riken Shah, Ar Revenue/Respondent By : Shri Ashish Kumar Agrawal, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.07.2024 Order Per Padmavathy S, Am: These Cross Appeals By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-55, Mumbai Dated 27.06.2017 For

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi / Riken ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar Agrawal, Sr
Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM

Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd (Since Amalgamated With Grasim Industries Limited), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (Ltu) 1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5848/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40Section 43BSection 801A

mind the judicial pronouncements rendered in this regard to decide in accordance with law. Needless to say that the assessee be given an opportunity of being heard. 32. For the year under consideration also we notice that the issues are not raised before the lower authorities. Therefore respectfully following

Swarn Ganga Jewellers, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Circle 4(1) Now DCIT, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 675/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: This Tribunal Being Aggrieved By An Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1045180258(1) For A.Y. 2017-18 Dt. 05/09/2022 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Impugned Order Is Passed By Cit(A) In Terms Of Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Factual Matrix 2. That Survey U/S 133A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Conducted On The Business Premises Of The Assessee On 06/09/2016. The Assessee Surrendered A Sum Of Rs. 50,00,000/- During The Survey & Paid Tax Thereon. The Return Of Income Was Filed On 01/11/2017 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 89,48,260/-. Thereafter The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Compulsory Scrutiny Guidelines & Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued On 11/09/2018. The Assessment Was Finalised Vide Order Dt. 23/12/2019 Whereby Addition Of Rs. 95,70,882/- Was Made U/S 68 R.W..S 115Bbe Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 250Section 253Section 68

impugned assessment order as well as the appellate order deserves to be quashed since both these orders were passed without granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 5. That the appellant craves leave for any addition, deletion or amendment in the grounds of appeal on or before

Shri Adeshwar Jain Shwetamber Trust, Pune vs. CIT, Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 616/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreshri Adeshwar Jain Shwetamber Trust Cit(Exemption), Pune Jain Temple, Near Hotel Mayur, Vs. Mumbai Pune Road, Pune City, Chinchwad East S.O., Pune - 411019 Pan: Aacts7467B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri Jeetendra Tiwari & C.T. Tiwari Department By : Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 27-06-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-06-2024

For Appellant: S/Shri Jeetendra Tiwari and C.T. TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl. CIT
Section 12A

substantiate its case by filing the requisite details. The CIT(Exemption) shall decide the issue as per fact and law after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to submit the details on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under

Anuradha Ashok Satbhai, Ahmednagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 482/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish SomaniFor Respondent: Shri Pawan Bharati
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

appeal on merits. Needless to say, the CIT(A) / NFAC shall decide the issue as per fact and law after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold 5 and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes

Mr. Anil Ananda Pokharnikar, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 10(3), Pune

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

ITA 356/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Prashant MunotFor Respondent: Shri Pawan Bharati
Section 144Section 147Section 2Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

restore the matter back to his file for decision afresh in accordance with law after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. We order accordingly. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court

Mr. Anil Ananda Pokharnikar, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 10(3), Pune

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

ITA 355/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Prashant MunotFor Respondent: Shri Pawan Bharati
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 44ASection 68Section 69

play, the matter needs to be sent back to the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the appeal afresh on merits after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. We order accordingly. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose. Order

Surana Mutha Bhansali, Pune vs. ACIT-Circle 5 Pune, Pune

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

ITA 1442/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT
Section 143(2)Section 270A(1)Section 270A(9)Section 43CSection 80I

case, we deem it proper to restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee to substantiate its 19 claim of depreciation by producing the relevant bills / vouchers and decide the issue as per fact

Pinnaka Prasad Rao, Papanna Pet Mandal Medak Dist vs. ITO., Ward-1, Sangareddy

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

ITA 547/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 547/Hyd/2024 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Pinnaka Prasad Rao, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Papannapet Mandal, Ward-1, Medak Dist. Sangareddy [Pan No. Akkpp5629E] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri N. Ramappa, ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Naveen Kumar, DR

merits, without seeking any adjournments and the learned Assessing Officer to take a fresh look at the matter, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds are accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed