← 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

Conarch Associates, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT Circle 1(1)(1), Meerut

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 41/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C. N.Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 68

vide six grounds of appeal. 5. Before us, the Ld. AR contended that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) have provided proper opportunities of being heard which as evident from the fact that the entire assessment proceedings were concluded within very short span ... considered view that the AO had not examined the case properly. Therefore, in the interest of justice and non-affording reasonable opportunity of being heard by the subordinate authorities, we are of the considered view that this case needs to be restored back

Gurnam Arora, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Circle-14(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 354/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 254

claim of assessee of carry forward of STCL as per law and shall pass the order accordingly by giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. The ld. AO in the second round of proceedings, reproduced the directions of this Tribunal but again applied the decision

Vinay Kumar Shukla, Lucknow vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Lucknow

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 37/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow30 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144BSection 147Section 250(6)Section 69A

Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in passing the order without giving adequate opportunity of being heard. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in upholding addition of Rs.84,14,300/- made by Ld. Assessing Officer

Dharminder Singh, Sunam vs. ITO Ward Sunam, Sunam

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

ITA 594/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Us, Against The Impugned Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 26/07/2023. 3. The Assessee Is An Individual & During The Year The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposit Of Rs. 30,22,375/-In His Saving Bank Account But The Assessee Has Not Filed His Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2012-13. Based On The Information Available On The Record, The Case Was Reopened By Issuing Notice Under Section 148 Dt. 27/03/2019 After The Approval Of Competent Authority.

For Appellant: Shri Peyush Pruthi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 69A

appeal mainly on the ground that AO order dt. 16/12/2019 is exparte order u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard. The AO ought not to have made addition of Rs. 30,22,375/-. 6. Before the Ld. CIT(A) too despite filing ... pass a fresh order in accordance with law after giving assesse full and complete opportunity to present his case including opportunity of being heard. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30/04/2024. िव"म िसंह यादव परेश

Shree Smasta Gurjar Kshatriya Kadiya Samaj Na vs. Ari, Navsarivs.Commissioner of Incometax (Exemption ) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 92/AHD/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Us Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 10Section 119Section 12ASection 80GSection 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

M/S. Candor Infrastructure, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle- 1(1)(1) (Previously DCIT, Circle-1(2)), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 56/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 40

Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has grossly erred in law and in facts in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard and for want of prosecution. The appeal of the appellant may kindly be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC ... please he directed to afford reasonable opportunity of being heard. 2. The Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of the Ld. A.O. in making the addition of Rs. 18,21,780/- being the alleged difference in the consideration of land sale

Chiragbhai Patel, Khambhat vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Previously Circle-1(3), Vadodara

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

ITA 945/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2015-16 Chiragbhai Patel The Dy.Cit At Post Vasna, Tal. Khambhat Vs Circle-1(3) Khambhat – 388 620 Vadodara (Gujarat) Pan: Agfpp 2960 D

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Khandhar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 259Section 274Section 44A

file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to consider the documents produced by the assessee and adjudicate the issues, after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, we partly allow the appeal filed by the assessee. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee

Bhojalram Leuva Patel Seva Samaj Trust, Devki Galol vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 668/AHD/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT D.RFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(b)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

view of the above observations, the matter is restored to the file of CIT (exemptions), for de novo consideration, after giving due opportunity of being heard and with the direction not to disentitle the assessee for grant of registration only on the grounds as mentioned in its order for rejecting

Bhojalram Leuva Patel Seva Samaj Trust, Devki Galol vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 667/AHD/2023[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2024AY 2023-2024

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT D.RFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(b)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

view of the above observations, the matter is restored to the file of CIT (exemptions), for de novo consideration, after giving due opportunity of being heard and with the direction not to disentitle the assessee for grant of registration only on the grounds as mentioned in its order for rejecting

The Jaamiah Mueeniyyah Wakaf Committee, Bharuch vs. CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad, Ahmadabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 61/AHD/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR
Section 80Section 80GSection 80G(5)

Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that CIT (Exemptions) has erred in law in not affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that no adverse remarks regarding the objects/activities of applicant trust have been raised in the notices issued

Rahul Mansukhbhai Raiyani, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(2), Vadodara

In the result, these Tax Appeals are also allowed

ITA 541/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: The A.O. Therefore The A.O. Made Disallowance Of Depreciation Of Rs.3,04,279/-, Unexplained Investment Of Rs.1,34,03,090/- & Unexplained Cash Credit Of Rs.1,28,68,843/- & Determined The Total Income As Rs.2,74,10,818/- & Demanded Tax Thereon.

Section 144Section 37Section 68Section 69B

following Grounds of Appeal: 1. The ld. CIT(A) erred in violating the principle of natural justice by not granting adjournment, i.e., an opportunity of being heard, to the appellant, despite the appellant's request. In the interest of natural justice, the appellant requests that your honour provide one more ... opportunity of being heard. 2. Because the ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts while confirming the aggregate addition of Rs. 1,43,70,381/- which included an addition of Rs. 6,63,012/- related to Sundry creditors, Rs. 1,34,03,090/- related to fixed

Vijay Credit and Supply Co. Op. Society, Dholka vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 187/AHD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divetia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri A. P. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

assessing officer at the time of assessment proceedings in consequence to this order and the Assessing officer shall allow the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and to make relevant submissions. It may be ensured that the fresh assessment order is passed within the prescribed time limit as stipulated under

Vikas Laxman Chaudhari, Jalgaon vs. ITO Ward 1(3) Jalgaon, Jalgaon

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

ITA 558/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Vinay KawdiaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 143(3)

back to the file of the NFAC and direct to dispose of the appeal on merits in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 30th

Manisha Manoj Lunawat, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 7 (2), Pune

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

ITA 555/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 144

file of the CIT(A) and direct to dispose of the appeal on merits in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 30th

Gender Lab Foundation, Thane vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 193/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2024

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.193/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :- Gender Lab Foundation, The Commissioner Of Flat No.2203-4, A Wing, Vs Income Tax, Tribeca Building, Hiranandani Exemption, Pune. Estate, G B Road, Chitalsar Manpada, B.O., Thane. Maharashtra – 400607. Pan: Aajcg4122B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 29/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune Under Section 80G Of The Act, Dated 15.12.2023. The Ld.Cit(E) Dismissed The Application Of The Assessee On The Ground That The Application Is Time Barred. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Ground(S) Of Appeal : “1. The Cit E, Failed To Appreciate That The Appellant, Gender Lab Gender Lab Foundation [A]

Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

case referred to in sub-clause (B) of clause (iv) of the first proviso, rejecting such application, after affording it a reasonable opportunity of being heard;] (iii) ……. New Procedure for registration: 6. The new provision for Registration was introduced by Finance Act, 2020. There was amendment in the registration procedure

Murli Harumal Sawlani, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2), Nagpur

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 380/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Atal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 57

assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal : 1. “That, the Hon'ble CIT(A)-1 erred in not providing opportunity of being heard. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to 2 ITA.No.380/NAG./2022 consider the fact that the appeal hearings are fixed near the audit report filing

M/S. Bhawani Developers, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circl-2(1), Nagpur

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

ITA 316/NAG/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Apr 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani a/wFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 40A(3)

identical, therefore, the above two appeals are also restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh hearing after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, all the grounds raised in these appeal are allowed for statistical purposes. 10. To sum up, all the three

M/S. Bhawani Developers, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circl-2(1), Nagpur

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

ITA 315/NAG/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Apr 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani a/wFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 40A(3)

identical, therefore, the above two appeals are also restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh hearing after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, all the grounds raised in these appeal are allowed for statistical purposes. 10. To sum up, all the three

M/S. Bhawani Developers, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circl-2(1), Nagpur

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

ITA 314/NAG/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Apr 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani a/wFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 40A(3)

identical, therefore, the above two appeals are also restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh hearing after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, all the grounds raised in these appeal are allowed for statistical purposes. 10. To sum up, all the three

Heera Retail (Hyderabad) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 413/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarappeal In No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 353/Hyd/2023 Heera Gold Exim Ltd Dy.Cit, Circle 2(2) 2015-16 Kukatpally, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aacch5458A 354/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2016-17 355/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2017-18 411/Hyd/2023 Heera Retail -Do- 2015-16 (Hyderabad) Private Ltd, Hyderabad Pan:Aacch5740D 412/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2016-17 413/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2017-18 िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Mohd.Afzal, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Sesha Srinivas,Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/04/2024 आदेश/Order Per Bench: The Above Batch Of Six Appeals (Ita Nos.353 To 355/Hyd/2023 Filed By Heera Gold Exim Ltd & Ita Nos.411 To 413/Hyd/2023 Filed By Heera Retail (Hyderabad) Pvt Ltd) Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 27.04.2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Relating To A.Ys. 2015-16 To 2017-18 Respectively. Since Identical Grounds Have Been Taken In All These Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Mohd.Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Sesha Srinivas,CIT(DR)
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

that the money belongs to the small investors. The Assessing Officer shall decide the issue as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the Page 10 of 11 ITA Nos 353 to 355 and 411 to 413 of 2023 HEERA GOLD EXIM LTD assessee