“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

Sunita Tyagi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward 2(2)(3), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 3775/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Sunita Tyagi, Vs Ito, R-7/120, Raj Nagar, Ward-2(2)(3), Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh-201002. Pan-Aaupt3785H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sahil Sharma, Adv & Shri Sanjay Parashar, Adv. Respondent By Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28.05.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi Dated 30.11.2023 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 148Section 151

providing multiple opportunities to the appellant to explain her case, it cannot be said that the assessment order was passed without providing proper opportunity of being heard. Regarding the investment in purchase of property, the appellant has not submitted details of her sources along with documentary evidence even ... issues are restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to decide by way of a speaking order after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly, allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Apace Developers Private Limited, Delhi vs. PCIT-01, Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed as above

ITA 3631/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 26Section 263

against all the cannons of law. 3. Because, Id. Pr. CIT erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing proper opportunity of being heard, though no response of assessee is considered. 4. That, Id. PCIT has erred in assuming the jurisdiction u/s 263 on the basis that ... computational mistake taken place in the said order dated 22.09.2022. In pursuance of the ITAT order dated 22.09.2022, the PCIT had given sufficient opportunities of being heard to the appellant/assessee as detailed in para 5 and 6 of the impugned order but in vain. Since the appellant/assessee did not bring

Benzi Inapex Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 3042/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Sh. Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Sood, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250

remit the same to the file of Learned CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue involved in the matter upon giving 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 at the time of hearing

Vardhman Buildtech P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Jt.CIT, Range-78, New Delhi

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

ITA 102/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareekvardhman Buildtech P. Ltd., Vs. Jcit, Range 78, Wz – 22A, 2Nd Floor, New Delhi. Vashista Park, Pankha Road, New Delhi – 110 046. (Pan : Aaccv6445M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Amit Arora, Ca Shri Suresh Kapoor, Ca Revenue By : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 Date Of Order : 28.05.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 15.11.2022 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. In This Case, Assessee Was Imposed Penalty Of Rs.30,12,420/- Under Section 272A(2)(G) Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) By The Jcit In Order Dated 30.09.2016. 2 3. Brief Statement Of Facts By Assessee Before The Ld. Cit (A) Read As Under :- “Appellant Was Imposed Penalty Of Rs.3012420 Under Section 272A 2 G By Ld. Joint Commissioner Vide Impugned Order Dt. 30.09.2016. According To Him The Appellant Did Not Comply With Provision Of Section 203 Of The Act. The Appellant Has Delayed In Issuing Tds Certificate Thereby Attracting Penalty Under Section 272A 2 G Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Proceeding For Imposition Of Penalty Was Initiated Through A Show Cause Notice Under Section 272A 2 G Read With Section 274 1 Dated 22.03.2016 In Response To The Above Final Reply Dated 06.04.2016 Was Filed By The Appellant. The Submission Of The Appellant Was Not Considered By Ld. Joint Commissioner As A Result Penalty Of Rs.3012420 Was Imposed. Feeling Aggrieved With The Order Of Ld Joint Commissioner The Appellant Has Preferred An Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Amit Arora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 203Section 272ASection 272A(2)(g)Section 274

remit the issue to the file of ld. CIT (A). Ld. CIT (A) shall pass an order after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. Assessee is also directed to cooperate with the Department in this regard. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Rajesh Goyal, New Delhi vs. DCIT CC-14, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed and as a consequential effect, impugned assessment is quashed

ITA 331/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. G.S. Pannu & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2011-12 Rajesh Goyal Vs. Dcit Ff, Plot No.32, Road No.43, Cc-14 West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi New Delhi Pan No.Aalpg2490F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate Sh. Shailesh Gupta, Advocate Sh. Madhur Aggarwal, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 26/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/05/2024

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 250

documents on records being no reasonable opportunity provided to the appellant to present his case by serving notice in a proper manner. Hence, opportunity of being heard should be given to the appellant for the sake of natural justice. 2. That on facts and circumstances of the case

Srs Modern Sales Ltd, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle-II, Faridabad

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms, as indicated above

ITA 6060/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 10Section 33Section 33(5)Section 37

erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. A.O. in passing the impugned order without giving adequate opportunity of being heard and by not observing the principles of natural justice. 10) That the appellant craves the leave to add, alter or amend the grounds of appeal

DCIT, Circle-3(2), New Delhi vs. Asian Consolidated Inds.Ltd), Rewari

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6219/DEL/2017[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2024AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 1998-99

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 264Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292B

made under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. If you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity of being heard in person or through authorize representative you may show cause in writing on or before the said date which will be considered before

Mahavir Kelavani Mandal, Antroli vs. Ward- Exemption, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 468/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2016-17 Mahavir Kelavani Mandal, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Antroli, Income-Tax, C/O. Mahavir Kelavani Mandal, Bangalore Nadiad, Gujarat – 387366 Pan: Aactm 6322 R अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Talati, Ar Revenue By : Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar: Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Bengaluru (Hereinafter Referred To As 'Cit(A)’) Dated 29.02.2024, In The Matter Of Intimation Issued U/S 143(1) Issued By Cpc, Bangalore On 01.03.2019. 2. Following Are The Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:_ “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Upholding The Disallowance Made In The Intimation Order Passed U/S 143(1) Of The It Act Which Was Passed Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Being Heard To Your Appellant. In The Said Intimation Order, The Claim Of Exemption U/S 11 Of The It Act Is Denied & A Demand Is Raised. Such Arbitrary Disallowance Of Exemption Is Prayed To Be Deleted. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Upheld The Disallowance Of Exemption U/S 11 Of The It Act In The Intimation Order Passed U/S 143(1) Of The It Act Making An Addition Of Rs. 40,67,000/- On Account Of Income Chargeable U/S 12(2) Of The Mahavir Kelavani Mandal Vs. Dcit Asst. Year : 2016-17 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr DR

Section 11Section 12(2)Section 12ASection 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 250

upholding the disallowance made in the intimation order passed u/s 143(1) of the IT Act which was passed without giving any opportunity of being heard to your appellant. In the said intimation order, the claim of exemption u/s 11 of the IT Act is denied and a demand