← 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

Gloria Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Puttur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Puttur

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

ITA 1017/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Smt. Sheethal Borkar, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 80P

taxmann.com 305. The assessee is also directed to furnish all relevant documents in support of its claim. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to assessee. In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open

Shri. Gopal Lokesh, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 752/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 250Section 68

That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)erred in law and on facts in not providing a proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant before deciding the appeal. 3. That the additions made in the assessment order and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) are perverse ... Aggrieved the assessee is in before the ITAT. 4. The ld. AR submitted that the ld. FAA has not given proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee and documents furnished by the assessee have also not been appreciated properly by both the revenue authorities. The ld. AR filed paperbook

Ksb Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1313/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2020-21 M/S. Ksb Limited The Assistant Director Of 601 Tower 1, Income Tax, Cpc Runawal R Square, Vs. Bengaluru, Lbs Road, Karnataka- 560500. Mulund (W.)- 400080. Pan: Aaack5918J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Tiwari A/W. Shri Mihir Chitaliya, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Biswanath Das- Cit D.R. Date Of Hearing : 13 . 06 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26 . 06 . 2024 O R D E R Per : Ratnesh Nandan Sahay: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Appellant Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act [The ‘Act’ In Short] Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2023-24/1060135975(1) Dated 25/01/2024 For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Following Grounds Of Appeal Have Been Raised By The Appellant: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ksb Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Appellant") Has Preferred An Appeal Before Your

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Tiwari a/w. Shri Mihir Chitaliya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das- CIT D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234CSection 250Section 35DSection 43B

assessment order under section 143(3) subsequent to the intimation order under section 143(1) of the Act. 2. Not grant of sufficient opportunity of being heard 2.1. The learned AO has erred in not issuing show cause notice before issuing intimation under section ... thereby not granting opportunity of being heard to the Appellant leading to violation of the principles of natural justice. 3. Erred in upholding the addition of INR 1,43,07,671 relating to deduction of Voluntary Retirement Scheme ('VRS') under section 35DDA erroneously reported as deduction under section

Shri Rishikul Brahmacharya Ashram, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai

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

ITA 4802/MUM/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: N.A Shri Rishikul Brahmacharya Commissioner Of Income Tax Ashram, (Exemptions), Mumbai Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai – 400 021

For Appellant: Shri Dipen Tanna, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 12A

hearing to the appellant. Such 2 Shri Rishikul Brahmacharya Ashram denial of registration is bad in law as order is passed without opportunity of being heard and violating the principles of natural justice. 2) Ground No. 2: Denial of Registration u/s Section 12AA On facts and circumstances, Ld. CIT(Exemptions ... application in form No.10AB for its registration u/s.12AA of the Act without considering the submissions made by the assessee and without providing opportunity of being heard, which is in violation of the principles of natural justice. 4. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed an application in form

Kamal Co-Op Hsg Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Ward 19(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 4796/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2021-22 M/S. Kamal Co-Op Hsg Income Tax Ward Society Ltd. 19(2)(2) 69, Kamal Society, Room No.608, Vs. 6Th Floor, Walkeshwar Road, Mumbai - 400006 Piramal Chambers, Pan: Aaaak0570C Lalbaug, Mumbai - 400012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri P.D. Chougule (Addl. Cit), Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 22 . 05 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26 . 06 . 2024 O R D E R Per: Ratnesh Nandan Sahay: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit Appeal Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act [The ‘Act’ In Short] Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1058240824(1) Dated 26/11/2023 For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Following Grounds Of Appeal Have Been Raised:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule (Addl. CIT), SR. D.R
Section 143Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

sustaining the same by treating the same as general in nature and dismissed it without any adjudication. The Appellant submits that the fair opportunity of being heard be given. 3. The Appellant craves leave to reserve to itself the right to add, after, amend or annual any of the grounds

Morarjee Textiles Limited, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 4112/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

outcome has a cascading effect on appeals of the subsequent years on similar issues. Needless to say, that assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard to represent its case. 7.1. Section 250 of the Act provides for procedure to be adopted while disposing of the appeal

Morarjee Textiles Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 4111/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

outcome has a cascading effect on appeals of the subsequent years on similar issues. Needless to say, that assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard to represent its case. 7.1. Section 250 of the Act provides for procedure to be adopted while disposing of the appeal

Sujata Singh, Faridabad vs. ITO, Faridabad

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

ITA 1303/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: The Ld.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 249(3)

with the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) without taking unnecessary adjournments. Needless to say that the Ld. CIT(A) shall give adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus, this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) accordingly. 10. In the result, appeal filed

Ved Prakash Rajeev Kumar, Meerut vs. ITO, Meerut

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

ITA 1288/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A), Even The Ld. Cit(A) Has Issued Several

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

authorities have not dealt with the merits of the case. In our considered view, the assessee should be given one more proper opportunity of being heard considering the nature of additions made by the authorities. To meet the ends of justice, we are inclined to remit this issue back ... file of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to deal with the issue on merit after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced

Agro Haat, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 36(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 101/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Agro Haat Vs. Ito Shop No. A-1131, New Subzi Ward- 36 (2) Mandi, New Delhi-110033 Delhi Pan No.Aapfa2449G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

fair play we restore the issue to the file of the AO to be decided afresh after affording a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 26.06.2024. (PRADIP KUMAR

Ashok Kumar, Gurugram vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Gurugram

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

ITA 3689/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Mr. Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Royi.T.A. No. 3689/Del/2023 (Assessment Year : 2017-18) Ashok Kumar Vs. Cit Ews 224, Ridgewood Ito Ward-1(3) Estate, Galleria Dlf-Iv Gurugram S.O., Gurugram – Haryana Pan: Ddjpk 5152 C (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 250Section 68

before the Learned CIT(A), these were not considered and addition finally was confirmed. Under these circumstances, the assessee further prays for an opportunity of being heard before the Learned AO in order to place the matter effectively in favour of the assessee, which with all his fairness the Learned ... issue to the file of Learned AO for Ashok Kumar vs CIT. Asst.Year : 2017-18 considering of the same afresh upon providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and upon considering the evidence on record or any other evidence which the assessee may choose to file

Mohd. Wasim, Gafoor Nagar, New Delhi vs. Income-Tax Officer Ward - 28 (4), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 3675/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 3675/Del/2023 (A.Y 2012-13)

For Appellant: Mohd. Wasim (Party in person)For Respondent: Sh. Anshul Sr. DR
Section 147

novo adjudication of the issues involved in the Appeal. Needless to say, the Ld. CIT(A) shall provide opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before passing the order on the appeal of the Assessee. Accordingly, the Ground No. 2 of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Suresh Chand Bansal, Haryana vs. ACIT, Central Circle-16, Delhi

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

ITA 3666/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

Income Tax Act. 4. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has grossly erred in law and on facts not providing sufficient opportunity of being heard in this matter before making such a substantial addition 5. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, delete, rescind, forego or withdraw

Amit Bansal, Haryana vs. ACIT, Central Circle-16, Delhi

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

ITA 3665/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

Income Tax Act. 4. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has grossly erred in law and on facts not providing sufficient opportunity of being heard in this matter before making such a substantial addition 5. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, delete, rescind, forego or withdraw

Amit Bansal, Haryana vs. ACIT Central Circle-16, Delhi

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

ITA 3664/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

Income Tax Act. 4. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has grossly erred in law and on facts not providing sufficient opportunity of being heard in this matter before making such a substantial addition 5. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, delete, rescind, forego or withdraw

Sahara One Media & Entertainment Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5320/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareeksahara One Media & Entertainment Ltd., Vs. Dcit, (Formerly Known As Sahara India Mass Central Circle 6, Communication Limited), New Delhi. Cts 40-44, Sahara India Point, S.V. Road, Goregaon (W), Mumbai – 400 104. (Pan : Aaacp3047R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Adhitya Vohra, Advocate Shri Arpit Goyal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 Date Of Order : 26.06.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)-I, New Delhi Dated 11.07.2013 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. That The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case In Conformity The Disallowance Of Rs.9,82,452/- Under Section 14A In Respect Of Alleged Expenditure Incurred For Earning Of Income Exempt From Tax.

For Appellant: Shri Adhitya Vohra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 14A

exempt income. Needless to add on both the issues, AO should pass an order in accordance with our above directions after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 14. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open

Jayshree Bhalchandra Gutal, Solapur vs. ITO, Ward 2(4), Solapur

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

ITA 897/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.897/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Jayshree Bhalchandra Gutal, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(4), Bhalu Kumkum, Plot Solapur. No.1228, A/P Kem, Karmala, Solapur- 413223. Pan : Ahzpg6709J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pratik Sandbhor Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Gawali Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.02.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Passing An Exparte Order Without Granting Sufficient Opportunity To The Appellant. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Assessing Officer Erred In Invoking The Provision Of Section 69A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Respect Of Cash Deposits Without Taking Cognizance Of The Fact That The Cash Deposits Have Been Duly Recorded In The Books Of Accounts Of The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhorFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 44ASection 69A

appeal of the assessee on merit. LD CIT(A)/NFAC shall decide the appeal as per fact & law after 5 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 the requisite

Eden Education and Research Institute, Aurangabad vs. CIT, Examption, Pune

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

ITA 614/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.614/Pun/2024 Eden Education & Research Vs. The Cit (Exemption), Institute Aurangabad, Pune Rahim Nagar, Beed By Pass Road Bazar, Satara – 431 001 Aurangabad, Maharashtra Pan : Aaate7724P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 282(1)

matter requires remission to the file of CIT, Exemption for denovo disposal of 4 the application in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant trust. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

Everest Education Trust, Pune vs. CIT Exemption Pune, Pune

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

ITA 587/PUN/2024[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jun 2024AY 2024-2025

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.587/Pun/2024 Everest Education Trust, Vs. Cit (Exemption), 963, Nana Peth, Pune Ardeshir Irani Baug, Nana Peth 411 002 Maharashtra Pan : Aaate2865R Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

matter requires remission to the file of CIT, Exemption for denovo disposal of the application in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant trust. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this

Smt. Radhadevi Madhusudan Jajodia, Thane vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Amravati Circle, Amravati

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

ITA 84/NAG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Himesh DambleFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Singhai
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 43C

Assessing Officer promptly. Needless Radhadevi Madhusudan Jajodia ITA no.84/Nag./2023 the say, the learned CIT(A) is directed to provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee