← 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

Block Education Officers, Ghattiya vs. TDS CPC, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 426/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Delhi21 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 234E

appeals, the assessee has taken identical grounds, which reads as under:- “1. Hon’ble CIT has passed ex-party order without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard. 2. Ld. Assessing Officer has levied penalty u/s 234E for delay in filing of TDS return which is not justifiable and liable ... were not received by the assessee and filed a submission, which is as under:- 4. Under these circumstances, he humbly prayed for further opportunity of being heard by the authorities below for adjudication of the matter in its proper perspective. Such prayer made by the ld. AR has not been

Block Education Officers, Ghattiya vs. TDS CPC, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 425/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Delhi21 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 234E

appeals, the assessee has taken identical grounds, which reads as under:- “1. Hon’ble CIT has passed ex-party order without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard. 2. Ld. Assessing Officer has levied penalty u/s 234E for delay in filing of TDS return which is not justifiable and liable ... were not received by the assessee and filed a submission, which is as under:- 4. Under these circumstances, he humbly prayed for further opportunity of being heard by the authorities below for adjudication of the matter in its proper perspective. Such prayer made by the ld. AR has not been

Block Education Officers, Ghattiya vs. TDS CPC, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 424/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Delhi21 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 234E

appeals, the assessee has taken identical grounds, which reads as under:- “1. Hon’ble CIT has passed ex-party order without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard. 2. Ld. Assessing Officer has levied penalty u/s 234E for delay in filing of TDS return which is not justifiable and liable ... were not received by the assessee and filed a submission, which is as under:- 4. Under these circumstances, he humbly prayed for further opportunity of being heard by the authorities below for adjudication of the matter in its proper perspective. Such prayer made by the ld. AR has not been

Block Education Officers, Ghattiya vs. TDS CPC, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 423/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Delhi21 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 234E

appeals, the assessee has taken identical grounds, which reads as under:- “1. Hon’ble CIT has passed ex-party order without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard. 2. Ld. Assessing Officer has levied penalty u/s 234E for delay in filing of TDS return which is not justifiable and liable ... were not received by the assessee and filed a submission, which is as under:- 4. Under these circumstances, he humbly prayed for further opportunity of being heard by the authorities below for adjudication of the matter in its proper perspective. Such prayer made by the ld. AR has not been

Azad Singh, Bahadurgarh vs. Assessing Officer Ward 3, Income Tax Rohtak

ITA 394/DEL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Ms Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhazad Singh, Vs. Assessing Officer, H. No. 13/192, Gali No. 3, Ward-3, Balour Road, Vijay Nagar, Rohtak Bahadurgarh, Jhajjar, Bahadugarh, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abops1297G

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Chaudhary, CIT DR
Section 143(3)

been able to represent his case due to the Azad Singh reasons beyond the control. Under this circumstances she humbly prays for further opportunity of being heard by the authorities below for adjudication of the matter in its proper perspective. Such prayer made by the Ld AR has not been ... appearing for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case we find that though the assessee was given opportunity of being heard by the ld CIT(A), for some reasons or the other the assessee failed to represent his case and in that view

Hassan Mahaboob, Shamli vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(4), Shamli

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

ITA 123/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.123/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Hassan Mahaboob Income Tax Officer, S/O Islam Village Vs. Ward-3(1)(4), Mohammad Pur Rai, Kairana Shamli, Shamli, Uttar Pradesh. Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Bbbpm4711K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 68

passed by the Assessing Officer are against the principles of natural justice and the same has been passed without affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard. 7) The additions made and the observations made are unjust, unlawful and based on mere surmises and 2 I.T.A.No.123/Del/2024 conjunctures. The additions ... totality of facts into consideration this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to decide afresh after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the proceedings with the Ld.CIT(A) without seeking adjournments without reasonable cause

Shri Jain Samaj Delhi Shahdara, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, New Delhi

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

ITA 1132/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Shri Jain Samaj Shahdara, Vs Ito, Digamber Jain Mandir, Jain Mandir Ward -58(7), Gali, Chotta Bazar, Shahdara, Vikas Bhawan, Delhi-110032. I.P.Estate, Delhi. Pan-Aafas4145J Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Saurav Rohtagi, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2024

Section 144Section 69A

That under the fact & circumstance, Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in not providing the reasonable opportunity of being heard and deciding the appeal ex-parte. 3. That under the fact & circumstance, Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in not quashing the Asstt. Order since reasonable opportunity of being heard

Kautilya Shares and Stocks Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 14(2), Delhi

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

ITA 3884/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member)

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 11Section 115JSection 12Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(14)

justice. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in passing order without providing proper opportunity of being heard. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in not adjudicating the grounds of appeal

Kns Infracon Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 14(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 3630/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Parul Singh, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 234Section 69C

examination of the matter in toto by the Assessing Officer. We hold that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue if an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, hence, the matter is being referred to the Assessing Officer to pass Assessment Order de-novo. The assessee shall

Jullundue Motor Agency Delhi Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-13(1), Delhi

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

ITA 3625/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Aditi Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Parul Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

summarily affirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. We hold that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue if an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, hence, the matter is being referred to the ld. CIT(A) to issue notices to the valid registered address

Dex Logistics Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 7(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2354/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2354/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Dex Logistics Private Limited, Acit A-220, Ground Floor, Vs. Circle-7(1), Road No.6, Mahipal Pur Extn., E-2 Block, Civic Centre, Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aaccd5305L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 250

admitted and the same are restored to the file of the AO for denovo assessment in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 21/06/2024

Sh Tech Park Developers Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-22(2), New Delhi

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 2043/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

National Faceless Assessment Centre ('NFAC') itself was bad in law and void-ab-initio, in as much as no reasonable and meaningful opportunity of being heard had been provided to the assessee. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has failed to comprehend, that the assessment framed by the NFAC ... without prejudice the learned CIT(A) has erred in disposing off the appeal arbitrarily without granting to the assessee a proper and valid opportunity of being heard, so much so that even the written submissions dated 20.02.2023 have not been considered and dealt while disposing off the appeal. 4. That

Ram Swaroop Memorial Charitable Trust, Bareilly vs. C.I.T. (E), Lucknow

ITA 33/LKW/2021[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Jun 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.33/Lkw/2021

For Appellant: Mr P K Kapoor [‘Ld. AR]For Respondent: Mr Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 12ASection 80G

represent effectively vis-à-vis to comply with the requirements sought through SCN. It shall be worthy to underline that the opportunity of being heard should be real, reasonable and effective and same should not be empty formalities, it should not be a paper opportunity, the doctrine of natural ITAT

Bharatbhai Kalidas Patel, Sabarkantha vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre Present Juridiction the ITO, Ward-1, Himatnagar

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

ITA 655/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 148

raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The Learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not granting the adequate opportunity of being heard, such opportunity should have been granted. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.3

Sant Sadguru Siddha Digamber Ganesh Maharaj Samadhi Mandir Trust, Nashik vs. CIT(Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 483/PUN/2024[N.A]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.483/Pun/2024

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri P.R. Mane
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. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this

Santosh Krushna Ghule, Satara vs. ITO, Ward-5, Satara

ITA 461/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.461/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Santosh Krushna Ghule, V The Income Tax Officer, 165/9, Sahu Nagar, Godolo, S Ward-5, Satara. Satara – 415001. Maharashtra. Pan: Ayopg3325J Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Prateek Jha – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 13.01.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Without Granting Him Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard & The Impugned Order Deserves To Be Set Aside. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Erred In Not Appreciating That The Ld Ao Had Assessed An Amount Of Rs.53,24,743/- As Long Term Capital Gains Without Santosh Krushna Ghule [A]

Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 45Section 54F

case and in law the Ld CIT(A), NFAC, erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee without granting him reasonable opportunity of being heard and the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case ... without discussing each and every ground and merits of the case and merely dismissed for non-compliance. Hence, ld.AR requested for one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Submission of ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) : 3. The ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer

Pravin Mansukhlal Pateliya, Hinganghat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Wardha

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1/NAG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 40

reopening and subsequent assessment needs to be annulled”? 2] The assessment was completed ex-parte u/s 144 of the I.T. Act without affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee and therefore, the addition is not sustainable. 3] Tax on interest income earned by the NBFC is already paid

Bhagatram Rawaldas Motwani, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer (ITO) Circle-4, Nagpur

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

ITA 421/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri K.P.Dewani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR
Section 234ASection 250Section 250(6)

dismissing the appeal without adjudicating merits of additions made by A.O. 2] Order passed by learned CIT(A) is without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard and is in violation of principles of natural justice. Addition as made ought to have been deleted. 3] Order passed by learned

Kohinoor Citi Projects LLP, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle- 6(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 379/HYD/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Jun 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.379/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) M/S. Kohinoor Citi Projects Llp, Dcit, Circle 6(1), Vs. Hyderabad. Hyderabad – 500034. Pan : Aanfk7252R (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: None. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/06/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 20/06/2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 234ASection 69A

Rs.2,85,35,500/- made by the Assessing Officer by applying provisions u/s. 69A of IT Act, 1961, without giving the final opportunity of being heard. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the interest u/s.234A, 234B & 234C of IT Act, 1961. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred

Applabs Technologies Pvt Ltd (Now Merged With Computer Science Corporation Pvt Ltd ), Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

ITA 854/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)

same to the file of Ld.CIT(A) with a direction for fresh consideration of the matter in accordance with law, by giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. These grounds are accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 5. The Ld. AR while objecting the adjudication ... same to the file of Ld.CIT(A) with a direction for fresh consideration of the matter in accordance with law, by giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. These grounds are accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee