“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

Punctual Vincom Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 982/KOL/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 982 & 983/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Punctual Vincom Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), 63, Radha Bazar Street Vs Kolkata 3Rd Floor, Room No. 10 Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aafcp7707H] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Archana Gupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: Both These Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Even Dt. 21/07/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012- 13. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Several Grounds Of Appeal In Both These Appeals By Way Of Revised Grounds Of Appeal But The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee, Before Us Submitted That The Orders Of The Ld. First Appellate Authority Passed In Both These Appeals Are Ex-Parte & Assessee Was Not Afforded Reasonable Opportunity Of Hearing. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Not Disposed Off The Appeals On Merits & If It Had Been So, The Assessee Stood A Fair Chance In Succeeding. Therefore, He Prayed That Both The Appeals Be Restored To The File Of The Ld. Cit(A) For Fresh

For Appellant: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Archana Gupta, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R

Section 250

fresh 2 I.T.A. No. 982 & 983/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Punctual Vincom Pvt. Ltd. adjudication on merits, after providing the assessee opportunity of being heard. The ld. D/R, though not leaving her grounds, did not oppose this request of the ld. Counsel for the assessee. 3. We have heard ... file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merit. The ld. CIT(A) shall afford the assessee with sufficient opportunity of being heard and thereafter pass a speaking order on merit of the case. Needless to mention that the assessee shall produce all necessary documents/evidence in support

Ranbhumi Nirman Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., NFAC, Delhi / I.T.O., Ward - 4(1), Kolkata

The appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 728/KOL/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. Nos.727&728/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Ranbhumi Nirman Pvt Ltd.………………............…...……………....Appellant Mercantile Building, 9/12, Lal Bazar Street, Block-B, 2Nd Floor, Room No.10, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aafcr6772E] Vs. Ito, Nfac, Delhi…………...............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Joydeep Chakrabotry, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 25, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 29, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 15.10.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Appeals, Hence These Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. The Assessee’S Appeal Ita No.727/Kol/2022 Is Taken As The Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts. 2. Ita No.727/Kol/2022 – The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 148Section 234Section 250

wrong in ignoring the fact that the assessment order having been passed without the appellant being given proper and meaningful opportunity of being heard and hence, is in gross violation of principles of natural justice and, therefore, illegal and liable to be quashed. 8. That the appellant craves to leave

Ranbhumi Nirman Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., NFAC, Delhi / I.T.O., Ward - 4(1), Kolkata

The appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 727/KOL/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2024AY 2013-2014

Section 148Section 234Section 250

Vipul Jain, Indore vs. The Income Tax Officer, 5(2), Indore

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

ITA 431/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanivipul Jain Ito, 5(2) 18, Ganesh Colony, Rambag Indore Vs. Mp (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Agnpj8206E Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.04.2024

Section 69A

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte without giving proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming

The Karnataka State Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 1060/BANG/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K. Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT – DR

Section 2Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

The Karnataka State Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 1059/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K. Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT – DR

Section 2Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

Page 1 of 48 ITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI

The Karnataka State Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly

ITA 1058/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

Section 2Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

assessee and to compute the deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i)/(d) in accordance with law. Needless to say the proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. Accordingly grounds raised _on this issue for all the assessment years under consideration in grounds mentioned herein above ... However we direct the Ld.AO to consider the alternate claim of the assessee in accordance with law. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. Accordingly grounds raised _on this issue for AY 2015- 16,2017-18 , 2018-19 & 2020-21 stands allowed

The Karnataka State Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 5(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 1057/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K. Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT – DR

Section 2Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

The Karnataka State Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 1056/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K. Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT – DR

Section 2Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

Page 1 of 48 ITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI

The Karnataka State Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 1055/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj SheshadriFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT – DR

Section 2Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

The Karnataka State Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank, Bengaluru vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 1054/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

Section 2Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

Page 1 of 48 ITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI

The Karnataka State Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 1053/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj SheshadriFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT – DR

Section 2Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

The Karnataka State Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank, Bengaluru vs. Income-Tax Office, Ward-5(2)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 1052/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K. Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT – DR

Section 2Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

Jayant Metal Mfg Co Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6 (1) (2), Mumbai

ITA 4445/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: the appeal is disposed off." 3. The relevant facts in brief are that Appellant-company did not have any business activity for last many several years due to deadlock in management arising from disputes between the two shareholder directors. For many years the Appellant-company did not file return of income. However, the income from

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VajaniFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 270A

filed by the Appellant. Further, the copy of the letters/submissions dated 09/03/2022, 10/08/2022 and 10/10/2023 show that the Appellant had requested for opportunity of being heard and personal hearing from CIT(A). Admittedly, no personal hearing 3 Assessment Year 2017-18 was granted to the Appellant. Under Rule

Vijaykumar Ramratan Jain, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-Appeal Income Tax Department NFAC, Delhi, Mumbai

ITA 4291/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pratik ChabbariaFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon

Section 144Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 271F

following grounds of appeal: “General Grounds 1. The appellant's contentions are that ex-parte order has been passed without giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard. No notices were served upon the appellant for the subject assessment year. The appellant had not been given a reasonable opportunity of being ... appellant before passing an ex-parte order. Such an order passed is bad in law since the appellant was not given an opportunity of being heard by serving a physical notice and represent his case before making an addition of INR 1,11,92,627 to the total income. Hence

Rubberwala Developers, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4224/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, JCIT

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 148Section 68

circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law Ld. CIT (A) erred in passing an ex-parte order, without providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming

Jayant Metal Mfg Co Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy CIT Circle 6(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 4213/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VajaniFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

letters/submissions dated 09/03/2022, 10/08/2022 and 04/09/2023 [placed at page 3 to 14 of paper-book 1] show that the Appellant had requested for opportunity of being heard and personal hearing from CIT(A). Admittedly, no personal hearing was granted to the Appellant. Under Rule 12 of the applicable Faceless Assessment

Jm Financial Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 4(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4210/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Dr. K ShivramFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 37Section 68

Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “A) Passing an ex-parte order without giving a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard. 1) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A), (National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi) erred on facts and in law in passing ... parte order without giving a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard before passing the order u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act. 2) The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Appellant was prevented by a reasonable and sufficient cause from furnishing the details and submissions before

Rajinder Singh, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 35(7), Delhi

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

ITA 3176/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Sh. M. Balaganeshrajinder Singh Vs. Ito 154, Sector – 24, Pocket- Ward – 35(7) 26, Rohini, Delhi – 110085 Delhi Pan No. Axpps 5699 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Amol Sinha, Adv. Revenue By Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2024 Order Per M. Balaganesh: 1. This Appeal In Ita No.3176/Del/2023 For A.Y. 2017-18 Arises Out Of The Order By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Appeal No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1056547141(1) Dated 26.09.2023 (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld Cit(A) In Short) Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act) Dated 27.12.2019 By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao). 2

Section 144Section 69A

Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal before us: 1. “That the Order passed by Ld. CIT (A) dated 26/09/2023 without providing adequate opportunity of being heard and in an arbitrary manner is totally illegal, unjust and unlawful. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the request ... file of learned CIT(A) for denovo adjudication in accordance with law. Needless to mention, that the assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is at liberty to furnish fresh evidences, if any, in support of his contentions. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with

DCIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi vs. Mdlr Airlines P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed as indicated above

ITA 1719/DEL/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2007-08 A.Y. 2008-09

Section 132Section 142Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 153DSection 264

Income Tax set aside the assessment orders with direction to the Assessing Officer to complete them de novo after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In pursuance to the directions of learned Commissioner u/s 264 of the Act, assessment proceedings for the impugned assessment years