“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

Sidhi Singrauli Road Project Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-23(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1296/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Sidhi Singrauli Road Project Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle 23 (2), 16/17, 2Nd Floor, Ahluwalia Chambers, New Delhi. Local Shopping Centre, Pushp Vihar, Madangir, Delhi – 110 062. (Pan : Aarc3716K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2024 Date Of Order : 19.06.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 17.02.2020 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, We Observed From The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) That The Ld. Cit (A) Decided The Issue Against The Assessee By Observing That Assessee Has Not Pursued The Appeal Despite Being Granted Several Opportunities & The Details Are Given In The First Appellate Order & Dismissed The Appeal In Limine.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

scope of works and considering the addition sustained by the ld. CIT (A), in our considered view, assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard on merit. Ld. DR for the Revenue did not have any objection of remitting the matter back to the ld. CIT (A). Therefore ... direct ld. CIT (A) to give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue on merit as per law. We also direct assessee to make proper submissions and appear before the ld.CIT (A) on the date of hearing and cooperate with the tax authorities. Accordingly

Mohanlal Ramnarayan Khandelwal Foundation, Gandhwani vs. CIT(Exemption), Bhopal

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

ITA 532/IND/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Jun 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

society has mentioned that donee are agriculturalists and villagers and this will take time to collect and will be submitted accordingly. Accordingly opportunity of being heard was given to the assessee vide notice dated 11.10.2023 but till date no one attended the hearing and no reply is received.” 5.2 Since

Mohanlal Ramnarayan Khandelwal Foundation, Gandhwani vs. CIT(Exmpetion), Bhopal

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

ITA 531/IND/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Jun 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

Singodwala Developers Private Limited, Vidhyadhar Nagar vs. CIT(A), CIT(A)- Jaipur

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

ITA 619/JPR/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: The Ao Who Made The Addition Of Rs.8,66,250/- Towards Income From Undisclosed Sources. 2.2 Apart From This, It Is Also Noted From The Records That There Was Delay By The Assessee While Filing The Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) & Thus The Ld. Cit(A) Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee On Two Counts. (I) On Account Of Delay In Filing The Appeal. (Ii) & Also On Merits Of The Case, The Assessee Could Not Controvert The Findings Of The Ao.

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 147Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

view that lis between the parties has to be decided on merits so that nobody’s rights could be scuttled down without providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, the matter is restored to the file of the AO to decide it afresh by providing one more opportunity

Vijay Kumar Saini, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7, Jaipur

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

ITA 480/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh SoniFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh, Add. CIT a

Section 139Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A) erred in passing Impugned order u/s 250 of the Act without providing opportunity of being heard including personal hearing, thereby violating the principle of natural justice. 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case ... aside the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) who will decide the appeal of the assessee after providing the proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass speaking order in the matter in accordance with the law. At the same time the assessee is directed

New Indian Public School Samiti, Nawalgarh vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are dismissed

ITA 364/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 271DSection 271E

JAIPUR ITA NO. 364/JP/2024 - u/s 271D of the Act ‘’1. Under the facts and circumstances the ld.CIT(A) has not given the reasonable opportunity of being heard and decide the case ex-parte. The ld. AR of the assessee could not appear on the hearing because the E-mail were ... deleted. ITA NO. 365/JP/2024 - u/s 271E of the Act ‘’1. Under the facts and circumstances the ld.CIT(A) has not given the reasonable opportunity of being heard and decide the case ex-parte. The ld. AR of the assessee could not appear on the hearing because the E-mail were

Sh. Onkar Syal, Bharatpur vs. ITO, Ward-2, Bharatpur

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 347/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

considered view that the assessing officer should hear the assessee’s submission on merits. But at the same time assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard and the ld. CIT(A) should have passed the speaking order. Since, the lower authority has not considered the plea of the assessee

Sh. Onkar Syal, Bharatpur vs. ITO, Ward-2, Bharatpur

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 346/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

Bindal Oils Pvt Ltd, Bhiwadi vs. ITO Ward, Bhiwadi

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

ITA 741/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 69C

Department. Hence, the issue in question is restored to the file of the AO to decide it afresh but by providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee will submit the 6 M/S. BINDAL OILS PVT LTD. VS ITO, WARD - BHIWADI necessary documents to contest

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(7), Hubballi vs. The Dharwad Urban Credit Souharda Sahakari, Dharwad

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

ITA 552/BANG/2024[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jun 2024

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Shree Raksha D, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT – DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

necessary verification in respect of the same. Accordingly, ground nos. c – e stands allowed for statistical purposes. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee on both the above issues in accordance with law. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue

Mukta A2 Cinemas Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Central Processing Centre-Bengaluru, Mumbai

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

ITA 1453/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Mr. Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Dharmesh Shah

Section 154

passed the impugned order without CIT(A) has passed the impugned order without CIT(A) has passed the impugned order without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard and therefore, order providing sufficient opportunity of being heard and therefore, order providing sufficient opportunity of being heard and therefore, order

Vikalp Goutam Pawar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-33(1)(7), Mumbai

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

ITA 1355/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Meena, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

erred in law and in facts in upholding the assessment order passed by AO which was passed without granting sufficient opportunity of being heard. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in upholding the assessment order passed by AO on best judgment basis

Bombay Mercantile Co-Op Bank Ltd Employees Co-Op Credit Soc. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-17(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1325/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Sathe a/w Asavari KadamFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatta (SR DR)

Section 142Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253

JURISDICTION 1. Erred in passing the impugned order ex-parte, without providing an opportunity of being heard to the Appellant on the ground that there was no condonation of delay application filed along with the appeal, without appreciating the facts of the case. The impugned order therefore has been passed

Mahindra Accelo Limited, Mumbai vs. Addl/JCIT (A)-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 1315/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year :2020-21 Mahindra Accelo Limited, 6Th Floor, Mahindra Towers, P.K.Kurne Chowk, Worli, Mumbai -400 018 Pan: Aaacm-4745-P ---- Appellant Vs. Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Visakhapatnam, 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha No.48/1 48/2, Beratenngrahara Begur, Hosur Road, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru – 560 100 --- Respondent Assessee By : Ms.Sneha Goyal Revenue By : Shri Surendra Meena Date Of Hearing : 12/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/06/2024

For Appellant: Ms.Sneha GoyalFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Meena

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 43B

disallowance and the same should be deleted. Accordingly, the AO may take appropriate decision after verifying the relevant details and after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed. Order pronounced in the open court

Shia Isna Ashri Momin Jamat (N.G.) Mumbai, Jogeshwari (W) vs. CIT (Exemptions), Mumba, I, Cumballa Hill

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

ITA 1091/MUM/2024[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2024AY 2024-2025

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Bansraj Singh, CA

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

under the correct clause and decide regularizing the Shia Isna Ashri Momin Jamat (N.G.) registration in accordance with law after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to resubmit Form 10AB under correct sub-clause of section 12A(1)(ac) and cooperate with

Svc Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir.1(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1072/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

operative Bank Ltd. examine the same and allow the depreciation in accordance with law. Needless to say that the assessee be given an opportunity of being heard. It is ordered accordingly. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open

ITO-11(1)(1), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Marg vs. Sateri Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Jogeshwari East, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed the revenue is treated as allowed

ITA 4443/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Sujatha Iyangar, Sr.ARFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash Singh

Section 133Section 133(6)Section 69A

furnish proper and credible evidences in support of its explanations. The AO may conduct necessary enquiries in this regard. After affording adequate opportunity of being heard, the AO may take appropriate decision in accordance with law. 10. In the result, the appeal filed the revenue is treated as allowed. Order

Shivdeeep Tyagi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 484/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 50C

deem it fit to set aside this issue to the file of the CIT(A) to decide this issue afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant/assessee. Accordingly, we order so and restore this matter/of validity of reopening of the assessment to the file

Dharam Singh, U.P vs. Pr. CIT Bareilly, U.P

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 821/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 3Section 44A

proceeded to set aside the assessment order with a direction to the Assessing Officer to frame the assessment de novo after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. Reiterating the stand taken before learned PCIT, learned counsel for the assessee submitted, in course of assessment proceedings

Gopesh Gagjibhai Sutariya, Ahmedabad vs. Ward 3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 413/AHD/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Jun 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 57

reply to the notices. 2. The above order has been passed without following the principles of natural justice and not giving the opportunity of being heard. 3. We request you to allow our appeal and shall be vigilant for the matter and shall comply with all the further notices