← 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

Sjlt Textiles Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corp Cricle 6(2), Nungambakkam Chennai

In the result the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 671/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.671/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2017-18 Sjlt Textiles Private Limited Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 2E Second Floor, Prince Arcade Corp Circle-6(2), Chennai. Cathedral Road, Chennai-86 [Pan: Aaics2028M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms.Sandyaarthi, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024

For Appellant: Ms.Sandyaarthi, CAFor Respondent: Shri ARV Srinivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 115BSection 250Section 69A

rival submission in the light of facts of the case and material brought on records. The factum of assesse not being provided sufficient opportunity of being heard, on this matter, is clearly evident from records. Opening para of the assessment order dated 28.12.2019 shows that the first scrutiny notice ... compliance on any issue. The Ld.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate this crucial aspect of the issue under consideration. :- 6 -: 10.0 Adequate opportunity of being heard to an aggrieved party is a natural right and cannot be violated. Any order passed in violation of this right is liable

Rajan Hemalatha, Chennai vs. DCIT-Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai

In the result the appeal is dismissed

ITA 419/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.419/Chny/2022 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2017-18 Rajan Hemalatha, Flat No.C3, 3Rd Floor, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 61 Golden Kings Court, Tas Enclave, Circle-3(2), Chennai. 10Th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai-40. [Pan: Aatph2012G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.P.Chidambaram, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri S.P.Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

show cause notice u/s 263 dated 08.02,2022 was issued to the assessee calling for explanation on the :- 3 -: above mentioned issues. An opportunity of being heard personally was also granted on 21.02.2022. 5. In response of the show cause notice Shri K. M Akshay appeared on behalf of assessee ... assessment to the file of the Assessing Officer to make detailed enquiries on the above issues and complete the assessment after affording reasonable opportunities of being heard to the Assesse…” 5.0 It is the case of the assesse that the order of the AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial

Krishan Gas Agency, Bangalore vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3 (2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for 11

ITA 540/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeykrishan Gas Agency Acit, Circle - 3(2)(1) No. B-6, Gda Shopping Complex Bmtc Building, 80 Feet Road Mrcr Layout, Vijaya Nagar Vs. 6Th Block, Koramangala Bangalore 560040 Bengaluru 560095 Pan – Aaffk4416P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca Revenue By: Shri V. Parithivel, Jcit Date Of Hearing: 07.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.06.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (‘Learned Cit(A)’) Dated 29.01.2024 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1060208638 (1) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Partially Confirming The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer. The Appellate Order As Passed To The Extent Confirming He Assessment Order Is Bad In Law & Are Required To Be Quashed. 2. Without Prejudice, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Partially Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer To The Extent

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 68

details / evidences filed by the assessee based on the above direction and to consider the claim in accordance with law. The reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. Further the assessee may be granted physical hearing in order to justify its claim. In the result

Ashapura Stone Industries, Anand vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3 Now Ward-1, Anand

ITA 28/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member 1. Ita No.27/Ahd/2024 2. Ita No.28/Ahd/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 (Respectively) Ashapura Stone Industries The Income Tax Officer Nh No.8, Nr. Geb Sub-Station Vs Ward-3 (Now Ward-1) Vasad – 388 306 (Gujarat) Anand Pan: Aaufa 6762 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.T. Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Pertain To Different Assessment Years, But Involve Common Issues (Except Quantum In Appeal) & Hence Are Being Decided Together For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. The Appeals Are Directed Against The Orders Of The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) - [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)”], For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2012-13 & 2013-14, Both Dated 16/11/2023, Arising Out Of Assessment Orders Passed For Respective Assessment Years By Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Shri B.T. Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 69

grounds of appeal: 5. The Ld.Representative of the Assessee (AR) contended that the Ld.CIT(A) passed the appeal order without providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, which is a violation of the principles of natural justice. Furthermore, the Assessee asserted that he was not given the opportunity ... remand the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with directions that – - The Ld.CIT(A) shall provide the Assessee an opportunity of being heard. - The Ld.CIT(A) shall allow the Assessee to cross-examine the supplier. - The Ld.CIT(A) shall get the statement of the bank officer recorded

Ashapura Stone Industries, Anand vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3 Now Ward-1, Anand

ITA 27/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member 1. Ita No.27/Ahd/2024 2. Ita No.28/Ahd/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 (Respectively) Ashapura Stone Industries The Income Tax Officer Nh No.8, Nr. Geb Sub-Station Vs Ward-3 (Now Ward-1) Vasad – 388 306 (Gujarat) Anand Pan: Aaufa 6762 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.T. Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Pertain To Different Assessment Years, But Involve Common Issues (Except Quantum In Appeal) & Hence Are Being Decided Together For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. The Appeals Are Directed Against The Orders Of The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) - [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)”], For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2012-13 & 2013-14, Both Dated 16/11/2023, Arising Out Of Assessment Orders Passed For Respective Assessment Years By Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Shri B.T. Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 69

grounds of appeal: 5. The Ld.Representative of the Assessee (AR) contended that the Ld.CIT(A) passed the appeal order without providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, which is a violation of the principles of natural justice. Furthermore, the Assessee asserted that he was not given the opportunity ... remand the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with directions that – - The Ld.CIT(A) shall provide the Assessee an opportunity of being heard. - The Ld.CIT(A) shall allow the Assessee to cross-examine the supplier. - The Ld.CIT(A) shall get the statement of the bank officer recorded

Skywards Kanakraj Developer, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Pune

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

ITA 725/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Skywards Kanakraj Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Pune. Developer, Office No.704, Vb Capital, Range Hills Road, Opp. Symphony Restaurant Shivaji Nagar, Pune- 411007. Pan : Acafs3003P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 31.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.06.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.03.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Lower Authorities Erred In Passing Ex-Parte Order & Erred In Not Deciding The Issue On The Merits Of The Case, This Action Is Being Violative Of Principal Of Natural Justice. Your Appellant Prays For Granting Opportunity Of Hearing Before Lower Authorities.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 40aSection 43B

providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assesse. LD CIT(A)/NFAC shall decide the appeal as per facts & law after 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

Sunil Landmark LLP, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Pune

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

ITA 662/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.662/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sunil Landmark Llp, Vs. Acit, Circle-2, Pune. 562/9, Opp. Savarkar Bhavan, Shivajinagar, Pune- 411005. Pan : Aczfs2579P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 31.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.06.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.02.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Made By The Ao Without Considering Detailed Submissions Made By The Appellant In Respect Of Ground No.L To 5 & Deciding The Case In Summary Manner Without Any Speaking Order On The Legal Issues Raised Which Goes To Root Of The Assessment Proceedings By Deciding Ground No. 1 & 4 As General Grounds. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That The Assessment Order Passed By The Ao Is Bad In Law As Same Has Been Passed Without Considering The Submission Made By The Appellant Firm Within Appointed Date To The Show-Cause Notice Issued By The Ao

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The Assessing Officer shall pass assessment order as per facts & Law, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to respond & appear on the appointed dates of hearing before the Assessing Officer. We hold

Accuscan Daignostic Service Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Pune

ITA 526/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.526/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Accuscan Daignostic Service V The Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, S Ward-1(1), Pune. 304, Rajat Apartmens, North Main Road, Lane-06, Koregaon Park, Pune – 411001. Pan: Aabca4647D Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 10/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2024 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 19.01.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. That, On Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Of Cit(A), Nfac Dated 19.01.2024 In Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Appellant Is Arbitrary, Erroneous, Contrary To Law & Is Opposed To The Principles Of Natural Justice, Equity & Fair Play. 2. That, On Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Accuscan Daignostic Service Pvt. Ltd., [A]

Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 69A

circumstances of the case, the Ld. Accuscan Daignostic Service Pvt. Ltd., [A] CIT(A) has passed the order u/s 250 without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard and thus violating the principles of ‘audi alteram partem’. 3. That, on facts and in the circumstances of the case ... confirming the addition of Rs 32,13,000/- as rental income without appreciating the facts of the case and without granting the sufficient opportunity of being heard. 7. That, on facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition