← 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

Prathamik Krishi Pattin Sahakari Sangh Niyamit Mareguddi, Bagalkot vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Bagalkote

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

ITA 259/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Prathamik Krishi Pattin Sahakari Ito, Sangh Niyamit Mareguddi, Ward – 1 & Tps, Cts Pkps Sangh Niyamit, Mareguddi, Vs. Bagalkote. Jamkhandi Bagalkot – 587 301. Pan : Aaaap 6078 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Saidappa B. Gadadi, Ca Revenue By : Shri. G. Manoj Kumar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.05.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Saidappa B. Gadadi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. G. Manoj Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133(6)Section 44ASection 68Section 80P

filing the appeal and the matter is sent back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration as per law after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to produce the necessary documents for substantiating its case and to avoid unnecessary adjournments for early disposal

Nagapura Credit Co Operative Society, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 226/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Gireesha T.L, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

files of the Ld.AO to allow the claim as indicated herein above, by granting proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 2.13. The Ld.AR also took the plea that, the expenditure incurred in earning of interest from the commercial banks be allowed while computing the taxable income. The provision

Nagapura Credit Co Operative Society, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 225/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Gireesha T.L, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

files of the Ld.AO to allow the claim as indicated herein above, by granting proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 2.13. The Ld.AR also took the plea that, the expenditure incurred in earning of interest from the commercial banks be allowed while computing the taxable income. The provision

Nagapura Credit Co Operative Society, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 224/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Gireesha T.L, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

files of the Ld.AO to allow the claim as indicated herein above, by granting proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 2.13. The Ld.AR also took the plea that, the expenditure incurred in earning of interest from the commercial banks be allowed while computing the taxable income. The provision

Nagapura Credit Co Operative Society, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 223/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Gireesha T.L, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

files of the Ld.AO to allow the claim as indicated herein above, by granting proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 2.13. The Ld.AR also took the plea that, the expenditure incurred in earning of interest from the commercial banks be allowed while computing the taxable income. The provision

Nitin Nagarji Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 25(3)(5) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4821/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Shri Sunil Shinde, Sr. A.R
Section 144Section 147Section 68

perverse on the following amongst other grounds which are urged without prejudice to one another: - 2. Appellate Order passed without providing an appropriate opportunity of being heard is bad in law. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the impugned order without providing the Appellant an appropriate opportunity of being ... assessee in AY 2013-13. The assessee has primarily challenged the order of the ld. CIT(A) on the ground that no opportunity of being heard was provided to the assessee. Further, on merit also the assessee has challenged the addition for cash deposits. Before the ld CIT(A) assessee

Nitin Nagarji Mehta, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 32(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4820/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Shri Sunil Shinde, Sr. A.R
Section 144Section 147Section 68

perverse on the following amongst other grounds which are urged without prejudice to one another: - 2. Appellate Order passed without providing an appropriate opportunity of being heard is bad in law. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the impugned order without providing the Appellant an appropriate opportunity of being ... assessee in AY 2013-13. The assessee has primarily challenged the order of the ld. CIT(A) on the ground that no opportunity of being heard was provided to the assessee. Further, on merit also the assessee has challenged the addition for cash deposits. Before the ld CIT(A) assessee

Nitin Nagarji Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 25(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4819/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Shri Sunil Shinde, Sr. A.R
Section 144Section 147Section 68

perverse on the following amongst other grounds which are urged without prejudice to one another: - 2. Appellate Order passed without providing an appropriate opportunity of being heard is bad in law. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the impugned order without providing the Appellant an appropriate opportunity of being ... assessee in AY 2013-13. The assessee has primarily challenged the order of the ld. CIT(A) on the ground that no opportunity of being heard was provided to the assessee. Further, on merit also the assessee has challenged the addition for cash deposits. Before the ld CIT(A) assessee

Sampatraj Santokchand Mehta, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Kalyan

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

ITA 4550/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble& Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Piyush ChhajedFor Respondent: Shri Suresh D. Gaikwad, Sr.AR

them afresh in the 3 Assessment Year 2016-17 light of decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court(supra). After affording adequate opportunity of being heard, the AO may take appropriate decision in accordance with law. We also direct the assessee to fully co- operate with the assessing officer

Chetan Balubhai Sanena, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 32(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3849/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh, Chetan Balubhai Sanena Vs. Income Tax Officer – 32(1)(2) B-405, Rainbow Apartments Bandra Kurla Complex C.S. Road, Dahisar (E) Mumbai 400051 Mumbai 400068 Pan/Gir No. :Acipp3106F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Gunjan KakkadFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 148

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO could not have made additions to the total income without providing adequate opportunity of being heard. 4.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO could not have made additions to the total income

Association for State Road Transport Undertaking, Delhi vs. Assistantcommissionerofincometaxcircleexempt 1(1), Delhi

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

ITA 2526/DEL/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassociation For State Road Vs. Acit, Transport Undertaking, Circle Exempt-1(1), Plot No. 4A, Psp Block, New Delhi Asrtu Bhawan, Pocket-14, Sector8, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaaa0233A

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Sunita Verma, CIT DR
Section 10Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

file of the ld CIT(A) for de novo adjudication in accordance with law. Needless to mention that the assessee give reasonable opportunity of being heard and the assessee is also directed not to take unwanted adjournments, except due to exceptional or bona fide circumstances and cooperate with

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-I, Kanpur vs. Shri Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal, Mumbai

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

ITA 442/LKW/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2015-16 Dy. Cit V. Shri Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal Central Circle-I 2601, Glenridege Kanpur Hiranandani Gardens Powai, Mumbai Pan:Aaopj1739K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Smt. Namita S Pandey, Cit(Dr) Respondent By: None Date Of Hearing: 13 05 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 05 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt. Namita S Pandey, CIT(DR)For Respondent: None
Section 250(4)

additional evidences submitted by the appellant and send your report by making inquiry u/s 250(4) of the I. T. Act, after providing opportunity of being heard to the appellant, to this office positively by 30.01.2019. The matter may please be given 'top priority' keeping in view the directions given

Mahila Utkarsha Pratistan, Risod vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption)-3, Nagpur

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

ITA 343/NAG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur13 May 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

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

Mahila Utkarsha Pratistan, Risod vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Nagpur

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

ITA 342/NAG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur13 May 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

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

Mahila Utkarsha Pratistan, Risod vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption)-3, Nagpur

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

ITA 341/NAG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur13 May 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

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

Suresh Rizumal Bhojwani, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1), Nagpur

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

ITA 288/NAG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur13 May 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in passing ex- parte order without affording enough opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in relying solely on the findings

Hardsoft Exim Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-5(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 20/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250

aside and the case is remanded back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13th

M/S Olympus Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Cir-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1088/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 May 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1088/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Olympus Suppliers Pvt Ltd.……..…………............…...……………....Appellant 15/B, Clive Row, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aabco0624Q] Vs. Pcit, Circle-2, Kolkata……….…...............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 10, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 13, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 23.03.2015 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pr. Cit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. This Is A Second Round Of Litigation Before Us. Earlier, The Assessee Had Filed Appeal Before This Tribunal Against The Impugned Order Of The Pr. Cit Passed U/S 263 Of The Act, However, The Said Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed Along With Three Other Cases By A Common Order Dated 05.08.2016. Being Aggrieved By The Said Order, The Assessee Preferred Further Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Calcutta High Court Bearing No. Itat/328/2017 Ia No.Ga/2/2017 (Old No.Ga/3184/2017). It Was Pleaded Before The Hon’Ble Calcutta High Court That The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed Along With Other Appeals, However, The Specific

Section 143(1)Section 151Section 263

change of Directors, if any. After conducting the inquiries & verification as directed above, the A.O. should pass a speaking order, providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.” The ld. Pr. CIT accordingly directed the Assessing Officer to passe the assessment order afresh. 5. At the outset ... 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 necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances

M/S. Neeladri Pattina Souharda Sahakari Sangha Niyamita Manvi, Raichur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Raichur

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

ITA 477/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaiana Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department (DR)
Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

files of the Ld.AO to allow the claim as indicated herein above, by granting proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 2.13. The Ld.AR also took the plea that, the expenditure incurred in earning of interest from the commercial banks be allowed while computing the taxable income. The provision

Kunal Gupta, Six Thapar Co. Mumbai vs. CIT(A), CIT(A) Mumbai

In the result, (a) the appeal No

ITA 4499/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P.D.Chougule, Sr.AR
Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

examining it afresh. The assessee is also directed to furnish all information and explanations before the AO. After providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the AO may take appropriate decision in accordance with law without being influenced by the observations made