← 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

Shri Devendra Swarupchand Shingavi, Pune vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(A), Pune-11, Pune

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

ITA 316/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Pune20 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri B C MalakarFor Respondent: Shri Uma Shankar Prasad
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

disorder with psychotic factures, the assessee was not able to appear before the CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard and ignoring the various decisions relied on by the assessee cited in the statement of facts, dismissed the appeal which is not correct

ACIT, Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad vs. Narendra Kumar Kamaraju, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 338/HYD/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.338/Hyd/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Sri Narendra Kumar Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Kamaraju, Hyderabad. 3-83/1/A/5, Nizampet, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. Pan: Aiypk 1035 F (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ca Ravi Bharadwaj ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Kumar Pranav, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: CA Ravi BharadwajFor Respondent: Sri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

seller is mentioned. Thus, the Ld. CIT(A) has admitted the additional evidence submitted by the assessee under Rule 46A without providing an opportunity of being heard to the Assessing Officer while finalizing the appeal filed by the assessee. Further the Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in ignoring

Shri. Santhakumar Damodaran Nadar, Trivandrum vs. The ITO, Ward -1(3), Trivandrum

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

ITA 950/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Cochin20 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. R.Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Sri. Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems 3 | P a g e Santhakumar Damodaran Nadar

Aatma Prakash Mental Health Foundation, Indore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 107/IND/2024[N.A.]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 May 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniaatma Prakash Mental Cit (Exemption), Health Foundation, Bhopal बनाम/ 738, Nehru Nagar, Vs. Indore. (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Aaoca9170A Assessee By Shri Apurva Mehta & Shri Rajesh Mehta, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 16.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.05.2024

Section 12ASection 253(5)Section 8Section 80G(5)

passed by CIT(E) with a direction to reconsider the From No.10AB for final registration u/s. 80G of the Act by giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee trust. Needless to say the assessee trust should co-operate by furnishing all the required details as mandated under ... passed by Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to reconsider Form 10AB for final registration u/s. 80G of the Act by giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee Trust and also restore the provisional registration already granted to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee Trust should

Krishna Kumar Soni, Ujjain vs. ITO-1(2) Ujjain, Ujjain

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 500/IND/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2010-11 Shri Krishna Kumar Soni, Ito, Daak Bangla Road, 1(2), बनाम/ Tarana Ujjain Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Ahcps5349F Assessee By Shri Sharad Jain, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.05.2024

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

assessee, therefore, the AO is directed to verify the source of the creditors and decide the issue afresh after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard.” 6. Accordingly, when the addition itself was no more in existence after the order of this Tribunal dated 2nd August, 2016, the penalty

Asokan Thiripurasundhai, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 188/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Srinivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)

file for fresh consideration of the evidences and written submissions filed by the assessee. The CIT(A) will also provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.” The assessee also moved an appeal in ITA No.188/CHNY/2023 for the same assessment year 2016-17 against the suo-motto order passed ... No.44/CHNY/2022 for the assessment year 2016-17 and the CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal denovo after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. ITA No.188/Chny/2023 & MA No.18/Chny/2023 5. In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.188/CHNY/2023 & the miscellaneous application filed

Mohammed Niyamath Ulla, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(8), Bengaluru

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

ITA 693/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar & Monish Sowkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 11Section 234Section 250Section 69A

learned Commissioner of Income - tax [Appeals], is in grave violation of principles of natural justice, as the appellant was not afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard, consequently the impugned exparte order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income- tax [Appeals] requires to be cancelled in the interest of justice ... Accordingly, the issue in dispute is remitted to the file of AO for fresh consideration and to decide the same after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Page 5 of 5 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

Tenova Technologies Private Limited, Thane vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 233/BANG/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Ashik Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, JCIT(DR)
Section 250Section 4Section 4(2)Section 4(6)

entire issue in dispute is remitted back to the file of NFAC, New Delhi to decide the same on merit after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court

Amar Pal, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward - 1(1), Meerut

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

ITA 3684/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 250

authority for consideration of the same afresh and to pass a reasoned Amar Pal. vs. ITO Asst.Year –2011-12 order upon granting an opportunity of being heard to the appellant and upon considering the evidence on record and any other evidence, which the appellant may choose to file

Braham Singh, Faridabad, Haryana vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Faridabad

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

ITA 3565/DEL/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2024AY 2017-2018

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

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Sunder Mangla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 271FSection 272A(1)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

which was further upheld by the First Appellate Authority. However, Learned CIT(A) while upholding the same not granted any opportunity of being heard to the assessee and ex parte order passed thereon. Similarly, the assessee didn’t file the return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 within the time ... made by the Learned AO which was further confirmed by the First Appellate Authority by passing an ex parte order, without offering opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Under this present facts and circumstances of the matter, Learned Advocate ITA Nos.3564 & 3565/Del/2023 Braham Singh.. vs. ITO Asst.Year

Braham Singh, Faridabad, Haryana vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Faridabad

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

ITA 3564/DEL/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2024AY 2017-2018

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

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Sunder Mangla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 271FSection 272A(1)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

which was further upheld by the First Appellate Authority. However, Learned CIT(A) while upholding the same not granted any opportunity of being heard to the assessee and ex parte order passed thereon. Similarly, the assessee didn’t file the return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 within the time ... made by the Learned AO which was further confirmed by the First Appellate Authority by passing an ex parte order, without offering opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Under this present facts and circumstances of the matter, Learned Advocate ITA Nos.3564 & 3565/Del/2023 Braham Singh.. vs. ITO Asst.Year

Jagdish Kumar, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Gurgaon

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

ITA 244/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Sh. Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri M. R. Sahu, C.AFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

issue to the file of Learned AO to pass a reasoned order in light of the above observations upon granting of an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and upon considering the evidence on record and any other evidence which the assessee may choose to file at the time

Malhan Constructions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 6(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is dismissed

ITA 452/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Anshul, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 250(6)Section 40

ascertained. We, thus, set aside the issue to the file of Learned CIT(A) for adjudication of the same afresh upon granting an opportunity of being heard to the appellant and upon considering the evidence on record or any other evidence which the appellant may choose to file in support

National Dairy Development Board, Anand vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Anand Circle, Anand

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2994/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Shah & Ms. Aparna Parlekr A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(xii)

appellant's own case for AY 2003-04. 3.1 Without prejudice to the above, the CIT(A) erred in not giving the opportunity of being heard to the appellant after the remand report. It is submitted that it be so held now. 4. The Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred ... assessee. Accordingly, the issue was set-aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for necessary verification after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A), in light of the above observations of the ITAT, restored the matter to the file of the Assessing

The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax., Anand Circle, Anand vs. National Dairy Development Board, Anand

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2954/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Shah & Ms. Aparna Parlekr A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(xii)

appellant's own case for AY 2003-04. 3.1 Without prejudice to the above, the CIT(A) erred in not giving the opportunity of being heard to the appellant after the remand report. It is submitted that it be so held now. 4. The Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred ... assessee. Accordingly, the issue was set-aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for necessary verification after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A), in light of the above observations of the ITAT, restored the matter to the file of the Assessing

National Dairy Development Board, Anand vs. The ACIT., Anand Circle, Anand

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2004/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Shah & Ms. Aparna Parlekr A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(xii)

appellant's own case for AY 2003-04. 3.1 Without prejudice to the above, the CIT(A) erred in not giving the opportunity of being heard to the appellant after the remand report. It is submitted that it be so held now. 4. The Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred ... assessee. Accordingly, the issue was set-aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for necessary verification after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A), in light of the above observations of the ITAT, restored the matter to the file of the Assessing

The ACIT, Anand Circle, Anand vs. National Dairy Development Board, Anand

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1873/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: PendingITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Shah & Ms. Aparna Parlekr A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(xii)

appellant's own case for AY 2003-04. 3.1 Without prejudice to the above, the CIT(A) erred in not giving the opportunity of being heard to the appellant after the remand report. It is submitted that it be so held now. 4. The Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred ... assessee. Accordingly, the issue was set-aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for necessary verification after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A), in light of the above observations of the ITAT, restored the matter to the file of the Assessing

Late Basheerunnisa Begum Sahebzadi, Represented by Lr. Sahibzadi Rasheed Unnisa Begum, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 271/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.271/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2017-18) Late Basheerunnisa Begum Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sahebzadi, Represented By L.R. Ward-9(4), Sahibzadi Rasheed Unnisa Hyderabad. Begum, Hyderabad. Pan: Ahups 5642K (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Rahul Singhania, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Singhania, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 282

remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to pass the order after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the legal heirs of the assessee in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to file the correct Form-35 in the name

Udaya Sridhar Reddy Siddareddy, Visakhapatnam vs. DCIT Central Circle 2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 526/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.523 To 526/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18) Shri Udaya Sridhar Reddy Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Siddareddy Central Circle 2(4) Visakhapatnam Hyderabad Pan:Aiyps1063R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: N O N E राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Rahul Singhani, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 17/05/2024 आदेश/Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M These 4 Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Order Dated 30.08.2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-12, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Ys.2014-15 To 2017-18. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee On 15.5.2024 As Well As On 16.05.2024. Hence, We Are Page 1 Of 14

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: : Shri Rahul Singhani, DR
Section 133A(3)(ia)Section 153ASection 2

treat the income of the assessee as business income and thereafter compute the correct business income of the assessee by giving an opportunity of being heard to the ass. The assessee shall file all the necessary documents/ evidences for claiming deduction etc., for correct assessment of the business income

Udaya Sridhar Reddy Siddareddy, Visakhapatnam vs. DCIT Central Circle 2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 525/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.523 To 526/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18) Shri Udaya Sridhar Reddy Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Siddareddy Central Circle 2(4) Visakhapatnam Hyderabad Pan:Aiyps1063R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: N O N E राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Rahul Singhani, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 17/05/2024 आदेश/Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M These 4 Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Order Dated 30.08.2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-12, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Ys.2014-15 To 2017-18. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee On 15.5.2024 As Well As On 16.05.2024. Hence, We Are Page 1 Of 14

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: : Shri Rahul Singhani, DR
Section 133A(3)(ia)Section 153ASection 2

treat the income of the assessee as business income and thereafter compute the correct business income of the assessee by giving an opportunity of being heard to the ass. The assessee shall file all the necessary documents/ evidences for claiming deduction etc., for correct assessment of the business income