← 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

DCIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi vs. Globus Agro Foods Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals are disposed of as follows:

ITA 2419/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 711, 712 & 713/Del/2022 A.Y. 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Kwality Techmech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit/Acit, B-20, Lawrence Road Cc-20, Industrial Area , Delhi Keshav Puram, North West Delhi, Delhi-110035 Pan : Aaeck1176E Appellant Respondent

Section 69B

facts of the case in making enhancement of Rs. 1,62,648/- to the assessed income of the assessee without allowing any opportunity of being heard in this regard. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in law and in facts of the case in making enhancement ... registered against this account. 10.1 However, it is noted that assessee has not complied with respect to cash deposits. After given a sufficient opportunity of being heard or to comply with the notices issued to the assessee, no reply/satisfactory reply have been furnished by the assessee whereby identity, genuineness, creditworthiness

Globus Agrofoods Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals are disposed of as follows:

ITA 1855/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 711, 712 & 713/Del/2022 A.Y. 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Kwality Techmech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit/Acit, B-20, Lawrence Road Cc-20, Industrial Area , Delhi Keshav Puram, North West Delhi, Delhi-110035 Pan : Aaeck1176E Appellant Respondent

Section 69B

facts of the case in making enhancement of Rs. 1,62,648/- to the assessed income of the assessee without allowing any opportunity of being heard in this regard. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in law and in facts of the case in making enhancement ... registered against this account. 10.1 However, it is noted that assessee has not complied with respect to cash deposits. After given a sufficient opportunity of being heard or to comply with the notices issued to the assessee, no reply/satisfactory reply have been furnished by the assessee whereby identity, genuineness, creditworthiness

Globus Agrofoods Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals are disposed of as follows:

ITA 1854/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 711, 712 & 713/Del/2022 A.Y. 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Kwality Techmech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit/Acit, B-20, Lawrence Road Cc-20, Industrial Area , Delhi Keshav Puram, North West Delhi, Delhi-110035 Pan : Aaeck1176E Appellant Respondent

Section 69B

facts of the case in making enhancement of Rs. 1,62,648/- to the assessed income of the assessee without allowing any opportunity of being heard in this regard. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in law and in facts of the case in making enhancement ... registered against this account. 10.1 However, it is noted that assessee has not complied with respect to cash deposits. After given a sufficient opportunity of being heard or to comply with the notices issued to the assessee, no reply/satisfactory reply have been furnished by the assessee whereby identity, genuineness, creditworthiness

DCIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi vs. Parmanand and Sons Foods Products P.Ltd, Delhi

In the result, the appeals are disposed of as follows:

ITA 1330/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 711, 712 & 713/Del/2022 A.Y. 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Kwality Techmech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit/Acit, B-20, Lawrence Road Cc-20, Industrial Area , Delhi Keshav Puram, North West Delhi, Delhi-110035 Pan : Aaeck1176E Appellant Respondent

Section 69B

facts of the case in making enhancement of Rs. 1,62,648/- to the assessed income of the assessee without allowing any opportunity of being heard in this regard. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in law and in facts of the case in making enhancement ... registered against this account. 10.1 However, it is noted that assessee has not complied with respect to cash deposits. After given a sufficient opportunity of being heard or to comply with the notices issued to the assessee, no reply/satisfactory reply have been furnished by the assessee whereby identity, genuineness, creditworthiness

DCIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi vs. Parmanand and Sons Foods Products P.Ltd, Delhi

In the result, the appeals are disposed of as follows:

ITA 1329/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 711, 712 & 713/Del/2022 A.Y. 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Kwality Techmech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit/Acit, B-20, Lawrence Road Cc-20, Industrial Area , Delhi Keshav Puram, North West Delhi, Delhi-110035 Pan : Aaeck1176E Appellant Respondent

Section 69B

facts of the case in making enhancement of Rs. 1,62,648/- to the assessed income of the assessee without allowing any opportunity of being heard in this regard. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in law and in facts of the case in making enhancement ... registered against this account. 10.1 However, it is noted that assessee has not complied with respect to cash deposits. After given a sufficient opportunity of being heard or to comply with the notices issued to the assessee, no reply/satisfactory reply have been furnished by the assessee whereby identity, genuineness, creditworthiness

Uday Edible Products Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-27(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5222/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 145(3)Section 40

case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in passing the order without providing the adequate opportunity of being heard in gross violation of principle of natural justice. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both

Ashok Vitthal Nachankar, Ratnagiri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Ratnagiri

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

ITA 602/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav K Singh
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 69A

power by calling for the remand report from the Assessing Officer and decide the issue as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. I hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes

Sunil Rambhau Wagh, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(3), Pune

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

ITA 160/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A ShahFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to adjudicate the issue afresh as per fact and law after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 9. The assessee ... issue of penalty also to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh as per fact and law after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 11. In the result

Sunil Rambhau Wagh, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(3), Pune

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

ITA 159/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A ShahFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to adjudicate the issue afresh as per fact and law after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 9. The assessee ... issue of penalty also to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh as per fact and law after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 11. In the result

Tata Toyo Radiator Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 7, Pune

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

ITA 152/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.152/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Tata Toyo Radiator Limited, Vs. Dcit, Circle-7, Pune. Taco House, V.G. Damle Path, Off Law College Road, Deccan Gymkhana, Pune- 411004. Pan : Aaact5566F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri M. D. Sancheti Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.11.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Order Passed By The Learned Cit(A) Is Ultra Vires, Illegal, Bad In Law & Contrary To The Provisions Of The Act. Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Thus Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing An Ex-Parte Order Without Granting A Proper Opportunity Of Being Heard, Thereby Violating The Principles Of Natural Justice.

For Appellant: Shri M. D. SanchetiFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 234C

learned CIT(A) has thus erred in law and on facts in passing an ex-parte order without granting a proper opportunity of being heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 2 3. Without prejudice to the aforesaid, the learned CIT(A) ought to have decided the appeal ... violated. Considering the totality of the facts of the case & in the interest of justice we deem it proper to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant assessee so that he can substantiate his case by furnishing relevant documents & explanations. Hence without going into the merits

Ankur Agrawal, Bhopal vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 21/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 May 2024AY 2013-14

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

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 69C

learned lowered authorities passed are unlawful and illegal. 3. That the learned lower authorities were not justified in not allowing proper and meaningful opportunity of being heard. Also the Learned CIT (Appeals), National Faceless E-Appeal Centre, was also not justified in not allowing any opportunity before confirming the addition ... learned lowered authorities passed are unlawful and illegal. 3. That the learned lower authorities were not justified in not allowing proper and meaningful opportunity of being heard. Also the Learned CIT (Appeals), National Faceless E-Appeal Centre, was also not justified in not allowing any opportunity before confirming the addition

Ankur Agrawal, Barkheda Bhopal vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 18/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 May 2024AY 2013-14

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

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 69C

learned lowered authorities passed are unlawful and illegal. 3. That the learned lower authorities were not justified in not allowing proper and meaningful opportunity of being heard. Also the Learned CIT (Appeals), National Faceless E-Appeal Centre, was also not justified in not allowing any opportunity before confirming the addition ... learned lowered authorities passed are unlawful and illegal. 3. That the learned lower authorities were not justified in not allowing proper and meaningful opportunity of being heard. Also the Learned CIT (Appeals), National Faceless E-Appeal Centre, was also not justified in not allowing any opportunity before confirming the addition

Navin Kumar Jain, Indore vs. ITO ACIT Dycit Faceless Assessment, Indore

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 469/IND/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 May 2024AY 2014-15

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

Section 148

provisions of section 144 of Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of material and information available on record, without giving any further opportunity of being heard.' Again the assessee has neither filed any return of income nor filed any explanation on e-assessment portal in response to above said ... Assessing Officer, after taking into account all relevant material which the Assessing Officer has gathered, (shall, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard, make the assessment) of the total income or loss to the best of his judgment and determine the sum payable by the assessee

Navin Kumar Jain, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer Faceless Assessment Centre, Indore

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 468/IND/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 May 2024AY 2013-14

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

Section 148

provisions of section 144 of Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of material and information available on record, without giving any further opportunity of being heard.' Again the assessee has neither filed any return of income nor filed any explanation on e-assessment portal in response to above said ... Assessing Officer, after taking into account all relevant material which the Assessing Officer has gathered, (shall, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard, make the assessment) of the total income or loss to the best of his judgment and determine the sum payable by the assessee

Kanaghrajen Balamurghann, Trichy vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2), Trichy

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

ITA 79/CHNY/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.79/Chny/2024 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri G. Tarun, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69A

issued notice to the assessee on 02.02.2021, 07.07.2023, 19.09.2023, 20.09.2023 & 28.09.2023, but the assessee has not availed the opportunity of being heard. The Ld. CIT(A) therefore, dismissed the appeal upholding the finding in assessment order. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that

Kalakavaru Balusubramanya Nagarajan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 686/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.686/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Kalakavaru Balusubramanya The Deputy Commissioner Of Nagarajan, G1 Block B No.42, Vs. Income Tax Sai Yokesh Flat, West Corp. Circle-1(2), Vanniyar Street, West K K Chennai-34 Nagar, Chennai-87. [Pan-Accpn1513H) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Tharish, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Tharish, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143Section 148Section 69A

that it shall comply with all the notices issued by the Revenue. No appellant gains by non-prosecution of its case and reasonable opportunity of being heard is a natural right of every litigant. We are of the view that ends of justice would be met if the assessee

Malini Balasubramanian, Chidambaram vs. ITO, Ward-3, Cuddalore

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

ITA 648/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.648/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Smt. Malini Balasubramanian, The Income Tax Officer, No.61, East Car Street, Ward-3, Chidambaram-608 002. Cuddalore.

For Appellant: Ms.Lekha, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 144

reads thus : "We will straightaway agree with the assessee's submission that the Income- tax Officer had not given to the assessee proper opportunity of being heard." 2. That the assessee could have placed evidence before the first appellate authority or before the Tribunal is really of no consequence ... aside the order of assessment and remand the matter to the assessing authority for fresh assessment after giving to the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard. 3. Two questions were placed before the High Court, of which the second question is not pressed. The first question reads thus

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle-10, Chennai vs. Sj Suryah, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 594/CHNY/2024[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.806/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2002-03 V. Shri S.J.Suryah, The Asst. Commissioner- No.35-1D, Of Income Tax, 114, Neelakanta Mehta Street, Central Circle-2(4), T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Alyps 3012 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

under: "No order imposing penalty under this chapter shall be made unless the assessee has been heard or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard...." From the above usage of language, the law has not envisaged initiation of penalty proceedings under section 274 of the Act. Under section ... envisaged only affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Neither section 271 nor section 274 of the Act mandates issuance of any notice. This language use, when in comparison with Section 142(1), which is reproduced as under: “For the purpose of making an assessment under this

Mudhiyor Balarkudumba Grama Pannai, Vellore vs. Exemptions Ward 1, Chennai

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

ITA 592/CHNY/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.592/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Abhishek, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S. Easwar, IRS, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 51

case, we incline to remit the file to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal on merit after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee. 10. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Since we have set aside to Ld.CIT

Mohammad Akram, Erode vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Erode

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

ITA 244/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.244/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. Shri Mohammad Akram, The Income Tax Officer, No.3200/36B, Main Road, Ward-2(1), Thalavadi, Erode. Sathyamangalam Taluk, Erode-638 461. [Pan: Bllpm 6172 N]

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 144

reads thus : "We will straightaway agree with the assessee's submission that the Income-tax Officer had not given to the assessee proper opportunity of being heard." 2. That the assessee could have placed evidence before the first appellate authority or before the Tribunal is really of no consequence ... aside the order of assessment and remand the matter to the assessing authority for fresh assessment after giving to the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard. 3. Two questions were placed before the High Court, of which the second question is not pressed. The first question reads thus