← 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

Usha Rani, Rewari vs. ITO, Ward-3, Rewari(Hr), Haryana

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

ITA 3573/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3573/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Usha Rani Ito, 1, Maruti Nandan Kissan Seva Kendra, Vs. Ward-3, Village-Kanuka, P.O. Dharan, Rewari, Tehsil Bawal, Rewari, Haryana. Haryana. Pan No.Axvpr9184L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 68

proceedings before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court

Akaansha Credit & Leasing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 2(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3404/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshakaansha Credit & Vs. Ito, Leasing Pvt. Ltd, Ward-2(1), 7/30, West Patel Nagar, Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaaca7625E

For Appellant: Ms. Mansi Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)

case, the NFAC has erred both on facts and in law in passing the order without giving the assessee a proper and adequate opportunity of being heard in violation of the principle of natural justice. Akaansha Credit and Leasing Pvt. Ltd (ii) The reason for non-compliance of the notices ... file of the ld CIT(A) for de novo adjudication in accordance with law. Needless to mention that the assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Akaansha Credit and Leasing Pvt. Ltd 4. In the result

Deepak Agarwal, Govindpuram, Ghaziabad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Ghaziabad, Cgo Complex

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

ITA 3373/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2024AY 2011-12

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

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147

keeping in view the additions/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, we are of the opinion that assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we are of the Deepak Agarwal vs. ITO view that this matter should go back to the file ... shall cooperate with the proceedings before the Assessing Officer without taking unnecessary adjournments. Needless to say that the Assessing Officer shall give adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus, this appeal is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer accordingly. 7. In the result, appeal filed

DCIT, Circle-3(1), New Delhi vs. Artex Knitting Inds. P.Ltd, New Delhi

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

ITA 647/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 68

loans of Rs.1,93,50,000/- before the CIT(A) have not subjected to the requisite enquiry/examination/investigation. Thus, the respondent/assessee deserves reasonable opportunity of being heard to make shortcomings or non-compliances. In view thereof, without offering any comment on merit of the case, we deem ... novo consideration. The respondent/assessee should ensure compliances during the set- aside proceeding before the AO. The AO is also required to provide reasonable opportunities of being heard before deciding the case on merit. 13. In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open

Inductotherm (India) Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT - 1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 369/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2018-19 Inductotherm (India) Pvt.Ltd. The Principal Commissioner Of Sm-6, Road No.11, Sanand Ii Vs Income Tax-1, Industrial Estate, Bol Village, Ahmedabad Sanand, Ahmedabad – 382 170 (Gujarat) Pan: Aaaci 3672 B अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Ld. Pr.Cit, Ahmedabad-1, [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Pcit”] Dated 30/03/2023 In Exercise Of His Revisionary Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], Challenging The Initiation Of Proceedings Under Section 263 Of The Act For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Challenged Order Raising The Following Grounds Before Us: 1. That On Facts & In Law, The Learned Pcit Has Grievously Erred In Exercising Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act. 2. That The Learned Pcit Has Grievously Erred In Law & On Facts, In Holding That The Ao Has Not Properly Examined The Issue Of Deduction Of Claim Of Excess Provision Of Inductotherm (India) Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Pr.Cit-1 Asst.Year: 2-18-19

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

directed him to pass a fresh assessment order to the extent of the issue as discussed in the order, after allowing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In view of the above, we have no hesitation in upholding the order of the Ld. PCIT. Accordingly, considering this fact

Ctr Manufacturing Industries Private Limited, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 347/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 156Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

ground relating to MAT credit) taken before him on merits and pass a speaking order in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. We order accordingly. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

M/S Regal Plywood Industries Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 454/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

prayed that grounds raised in the instant appeal may be restored to the ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard condoning the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. 3. Per contra, ld. DR was fair enough not to oppose this request ... adjudication afresh by passing a speaking order after considering the submission made by the assessee and while doing so reasonable opportunity of being heard should be provided to assessee. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and file necessary documents in support of its grounds of appeal and should

Raghunath Exports Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 4, Kolkata

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

ITA 440/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

prayed that grounds raised in the instant appeal may be restored to the ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard. 3. Per contra, ld. DR was fair enough not to oppose this request of the ld. counsel for the assessee ... adjudication afresh by passing a speaking order after considering the submission made by the assessee and while doing so reasonable opportunity of being heard should be provided to assessee. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and file necessary documents in support of its grounds of appeal and should

M/S. Dr. M Nagaraju & Renuka Nagaraju Charitable Trust (R), Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, (Exemptions), Ward-2, Bangalore

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

ITA 519/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 May 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Srinath S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 12ASection 250Section 250(4)

Page 5 of 5 remit the appeal back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh consideration and decision as per law after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to update its email id, telephone/mobile no. and communication address with the department and comply with

Dinesh Somatmal Dhokar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 19(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3556/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Ridhisha Jain, AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Income-tax Officer or the so called ambiguous wording in the notice impaired or prejudiced the right of the assessee to reasonable opportunity of being heard. After all, section 274 or any other provision in the Act or the Rules, does not either mandate the giving of notice ... called ambiguous wording in the notice [has not] impaired or prejudiced the right of the assessee to a reasonable opportunity of being heard". It went onto observe that for sustaining the plea of natural justice on the ground of absence of opportunity, "it has to be established that prejudice

Dinesh Somatmal Dhokar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 19(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3555/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Ridhisha Jain, AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Income-tax Officer or the so called ambiguous wording in the notice impaired or prejudiced the right of the assessee to reasonable opportunity of being heard. After all, section 274 or any other provision in the Act or the Rules, does not either mandate the giving of notice ... called ambiguous wording in the notice [has not] impaired or prejudiced the right of the assessee to a reasonable opportunity of being heard". It went onto observe that for sustaining the plea of natural justice on the ground of absence of opportunity, "it has to be established that prejudice

Rajeshwar Prasad Dubey, Mumbai vs. ACIT-12(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2002-03 is allowed and appeal for AY 2005-06 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1988/MUM/2023[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair,Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 68

objective and meritorious observations and findings on the submissions made by the assessee. Needless to say the assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard and the assessee shall also be cooperating for the effective disposal of the appeal and will be at liberty to make further submissions as deem ... back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to Rajeshwar Prasad Dubey., AY 2002-03 & 2005-06 decide afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee is directed to be diligent in the appellate proceedings. 15. In the result, appeal of the assessee

Rajeshwar Prasad Dubey, Mumbai vs. ACIT-12(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2002-03 is allowed and appeal for AY 2005-06 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1987/MUM/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair,Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 68

objective and meritorious observations and findings on the submissions made by the assessee. Needless to say the assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard and the assessee shall also be cooperating for the effective disposal of the appeal and will be at liberty to make further submissions as deem ... back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to Rajeshwar Prasad Dubey., AY 2002-03 & 2005-06 decide afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee is directed to be diligent in the appellate proceedings. 15. In the result, appeal of the assessee

Tek Chand, Panipat vs. ITO, Ward-3, Panipat

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 797/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 147

case, CIT(A) AddI/JCIT-2 has erred, both of facts and in law, in passing the order without giving assessee an appropriate and adequate opportunity of being heard in violation of the principle of natural justice. (ii) That the reason for non appearance before the CIT(A) AddI/JCIT-2 was beyond ... orders of authorities below are set aside and the matter is restored to the file of AO for decision afresh, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes. 4 6. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

Bhuvnesh Khurana, Haryana vs. ITO, Ward -(3), Gurgaon

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3629/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 69A

order passed by the NFAC is bad both in the eye of law and on factshaving been passed without giving assessee a proper opportunity of being heard in violation of principle of natural justice. 4. The applicant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal ... orders of authorities below are set aside and the matter is restored to the file of AO for decision afresh, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open

Bhavnesh Khurana, Haryana vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Gurgaon

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3628/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 147Section 148

circumstances of the case, NFAC has erred, both of facts and in law, in passing the order without giving assessee a proper opportunity of being heard in violation of principle of natural justice. 7. The applicant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal ... authorities below are set aside and the matter is 4 restored to the file of AO for decision afresh, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court

Rakesh Kumar Goel, New Rajdhani Enclave vs. CIT, NFAC

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

ITA 3380/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Rakesh Kumar Goel Vs. Cit 173, New Rajdhani Enclave, Nfac Anand Vihar, S.O. Laxmi Nagar, East Delhi-110092 Pan No.Aaepg7376H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2024 Order Per Sudhir Kumar, Jm:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 6

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

Harish S Dasani, Mumbai, Andheri(E) vs. TDS, CPC, Aaykar Bhavan, Sector- Three

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed, with the above observation

ITA 1036/AHD/2023[AY 2021-22 (FY 2020-21)]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 May 2024

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri P.D. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ankit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 200(3)Section 234ESection 250

Section 234E of the Act. Principles of natural justice 2. Erred in not appreciating that the Learned CIT (A) has not provided sufficient opportunity of being heard before passing the order under section 250 of the Act, in spite of the Appellant making a request for a video conferencing

Sunil Ramchandra Naware, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Nashik

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

ITA 99/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.99/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sunil Ramchandra Naware, Vs. Ito, Nashik. Row House No.6, Amrut Pushpa, Ambad Link Road, Uttam Nagar- 422010. Pan : Aappn5706R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 29.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.05.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.11.2022 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit Is Not Justified In Levying Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of Rs. 202118/- On The Ground That The Assessee Had Under Reported His Income By Rs. 4,34,830/- In Consequence Of Misreporting Without Appreciating That The Said Levy Of Penalty Was Not Justified In Law. 2. The Learned Cit Failed To Appreciate That Before The A.O., The Assessee Had Duly Explained That Under Reporting Of Income In His Case

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

decide the issue of 5 penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act afresh as per facts & Law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, so that he can submit his explanations before LD CIT(A)/NFAC. The assessee is also directed to respond

Veena Mokashi Legal Heir of Late Anand Mokashi, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2), Pune

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

ITA 340/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Mr. Anup ShahaFor Respondent: Shri Uma Shankar Prasad

name of Veena Mokashi, Legal Heir of Anand Hanumant Mokashi in accordance with law considering the merits of the case after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. This, in our view, will meet the ends of justice. We order accordingly. 7. In the result, the appeal