← 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

Guggilam Ravi Kumar, Tirupati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1), Tirupati

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

ITA 361/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Suresh, DR
Section 250Section 250(6)

merits, without seeking any adjournments and the learned CIT(A) to take a fresh look at the matter, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. I order accordingly. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

M V K Energy Private Limited, Madhapur vs. ITO., Ward 16(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 354/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, appeared for Shri SK Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Suresh, DR
Section 250Section 250(6)

merits, without seeking any adjournments and the learned CIT(A) to take a fresh look at the matter, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. I order accordingly. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

Seikh Abubakkar Warish, Kanaidanga vs. PCIT, Asansol.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 915/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(2)Section 263

file of assessing officer with the direction to pass a fresh assessment order considering the observation made by him after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. Dissatisfied with the above order, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal against the revisionary order passed by ld. PCIT

ITO, WD.9(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 35/KOL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata……………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…..…..... Respondent 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] C.O. No.6/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…....... Cross-Objector 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] Vs Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata …………..….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 07, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: This Appeal By The Revenue & Corresponding Cross-Objection By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 08.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 263

inquiry he considers necessary. Sub-section (3) incorporates the audi alteram partem rule of natural justice viz. providing to the affected party an opportunity of being heard. Section 143 deals with the dispatch of intimations specifying the sum payable as tax or interest that has been found by the Assessing

Pradeep Kumar Lunia, Indore vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 528/IND/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 May 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Pradeep Kumar N.F.A.C., Lunia, Delhi बनाम/ 79, Kanchan Bagh, Vs. Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aarpl6197Q Assessee By Ms.Ruchira Singhal, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15.05.2024

Section 144

restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to dispose the appeal on merits of the case after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant and in effect erred in confirming

Crimson Dawn Apartment Owners Welfare Association, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Non-Corporate Ward-1(1), Coimbatore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1257/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1257/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Crimson Dawn Apartment Owners Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Welfare Association, Non Corporate Ward 1, No.1, Crimson Dawn Apartment, Coimbatore Nava India Road, Peelamedu, Coimbatore 641 004. [Pan: Aabac 6320R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.05.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl. CIT
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 154Section 154(3)

remit this matter back to A.O. to decide the issue whether interest on FS is taxable or exempt after giving proper opportunity of being heard to appellant. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1257/Chny/2023, for assessment year 2016-2017 is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced

Mr. Pratapsingh Bankatsingh Rajput, Viyayapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Bijapur

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

ITA 622/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

assessee based on the above direction and to consider the claim in accordance with law. Page 7 Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. The assessee may be granted physical hearing in order to justify its claim. Accordingly, the grounds raised

Kennametal India Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 506/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 92C

operating revenue and entire operating cost. Since this change in method would have amounted to enhancement of the income of the Assessee, so opportunity of being heard was given to the Assessee vide order sheet entry dated 11.08.2017, as to why the proportionate reduction done by the TPO should

M/S A K Munshi Yojana, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption)-1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4652/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. A.K. Munshi Yojana V. Income Tax Officer – (Exemption) – 1(1) Mtnl Building, Podar Road C/O Nanubhai Desai & Co. 517 Sir Vithaldas Chambers 16, Mumbai Samachar Marg Mumbai – 400001 Pan: Aaata0904D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Nitesh Joshi Department Represented By : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha

view that Ld. CIT(A) ought to have decided the appeal on merits of the case and after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Notice sent through ITBA Portal would not amount to service of notice as the assessee cannot be expected to visit ... entire issue before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to decide the issue afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee is directed to avail the opportunity given to it. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee

Asmi Buildcon Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4646/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha
Section 143(3)Section 250

Tribunal vide aforesaid orders dated 01/12/2020 for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 in an expeditious manner, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. 4. In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court

Asmi Buildcon Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4645/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha
Section 143(3)Section 250

Tribunal vide aforesaid orders dated 01/12/2020 for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 in an expeditious manner, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. 4. In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court

K.S. Softnet Solutions Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-14(1), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal, therefore, is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 475/DEL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Sh. Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Abhinav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kr. Mishra, Sr
Section 143(3)Section 250

case, we are of the considered opinion that in order to prevent the miscarriage of justice, the assessee be given a further opportunity of being heard by the authorities below. Thus, we set aside the issue to the file of the Learned AO for deciding the same afresh upon granting ... 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 of the matter. We also make it clear that in the event, the assessee does not cooperate with the Learned

Jagmohan Motors Pvt. Ltd., Rohtak vs. ACIT, Rohtak Circle

In the result, this assessee’s appeal is, therefore, allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 466/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Sh. Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Naveen Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kr. Mishra, Sr
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

total Challans in respect of such deposit made by the appellant. While making assessment, the Learned AO is further directed to grant an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and to consider any other evidence which the assessee may choose to file at the time of hearing

Accel India Venture Fund II L.P., Cayman Islands vs. ACIT Circle-1(1)(1) Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 2655/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2020-21 Accel India Ventures Fund Ii Vs. Acit (International Taxation), L.P. Cayman Islands, Circle-1(1)(1), Walkers, 190 Elgin Avenue, New Delhi George Town, Grand Cayman Ky1 -9001, George Town, Not Listed 999999 Pan :Abpfa4451K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. T. Suryanarayana, Sr. Advocate Department By Sh. Vijay B. Vasanta, Cit(Dr)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

assessee wants to furnish any further evidence, the Assessing Officer must permit the assessee to do so. After providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the Assessing Officer must decide the issue through a speaking and reasoned order, keeping in view the ratio laid down

Sushma Tyagi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward -2(2)(3), Ghaziabad

In the result, the Appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2128/DEL/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: The A.O. In View Of The Above

even the Ld. A.O. has also passed the Assessment Order without affording sufficient opportunity to put forth his case, therefore, sought for an opportunity of being heard to the assessee by remanding the matter to the file of the A.O. for fresh adjudication. 3. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative ... Sushma Tyagi Vs. ITO file of the Ld. A.O. for de-novo adjudication with a direction to the Ld. A.O. to provide opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass fresh Assessment Order. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the Assessment Proceedings before the A.O. Ordered accordingly

Ganpat Manikrao Sorgikar, Pune vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi and Local Jurisdiction Assessing Officer Ward 9(4), Delhi

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

ITA 199/PUN/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.199/Pun/2024 (E-Appeal) "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ganpat Manikrao Sorgikar, Vs. Nfac, Delhi/ Plot No.3B, Flat No.97, Assessing Officer, Sat Angan Appt, Cdc, Ward-9(4),Delhi Chikhali Road, Chinchwad, Pune 411 019 Maharashtra Pan : Cijps2716L Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Smt. Deepa Sanjay Hiray
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

file of CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to dispose of the appeal afresh by passing a reasoned order after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee

Harish Warbhe, Nagpur vs. Asst Director of Income Tax CPC, CPC Bengaluru

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

ITA 414/NAG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy

For Appellant: M/s. Shikha LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

remit the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) and direct him to adjudicate the matter afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is also directed that the assessee should not seek adjournment without there being a justified reason. Accordingly, all the grounds

The Jamsetji Nusserwanji Tata Parsi High School Trust, Nagpur vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax CPC, Bengalore, Bangalore

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

ITA 377/NAG/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 11Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234ASection 250

considering that DDIT without going into merits of the case raised demand and adjusted the entire fund of assessee without providing proper opportunity to being heard and passed order U/s. 154 of the Income Tax Act, therefore the order passed in unjustified, unwarranted and excessive; 4. On the facts ... Ernst & Young Merchant banking Services LLP Vs. ADIT, ITA no.2333/Mum./2022, order dated 20/03/2023; wherein it has been held that “Without giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee/proper notice for adjustment through applying section 143(1)(a), no alteration in the returned figures can be done

Mohd Sadique Through Legal Heir Mohd Saquib Sheikh, Yavatmal vs. ITO Ward-2 Yavatmal, Yavatmal

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

ITA 353/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

remit the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) and direct him to adjudicate the matter afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is also directed that the assessee should not seek adjournment without there being a justified reason. Accordingly, all the grounds

Ramisha Supply Chain Solutions Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 520/HYD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 520/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Ramisha Supply Vs. Income Tax Officer Chain Solutions (P) Ltd Ward 3(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aadcr0598N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 14/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/05/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 194CSection 40Section 68

However, he fairly agreed that the matter may be set aside to the file of the learned CIT (A) NFAC to give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue afresh. 8. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone ... file of the Assessing Officer and direct the Assessing Officer to reconsider the assessment denovo in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 11. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court