← 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

Jaina Marketing & Associates, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-18, Delhi

Accordingly, Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 224/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132Section 153ASection 270ASection 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

should not be made under section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. If you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity of being heard in person or through authorised representative, you may show cause in writing on or before the said date which will be considered before ... called ambiguous wording in the notice [has not] impaired or prejudiced the right of the assessee to a reasonable opportunity of being heard". It went onto observe that for sustaining the plea of natural justice on the ground of absence of opportunity, "it has to be established that prejudice

Alcatel Lucent India Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-15, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1447/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

ratio laid down by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in case of Kusum Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. The assessee must be provided reasonable opportunity of being heard before deciding the issue. Ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 41. In ground no.5, the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs.7 ... No.199/Del/2023 be given. With the aforesaid observations, issue is restored back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 48. In ground no.6, the assessee has raised the issue of short credit of tax collected at source

M/S Siddharth University, Siddharth Nagar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (E), Lucknow

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

ITA 140/LKW/2021[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Mar 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 10

natural justice. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in law and on facts in passing the order without giving adequate opportunity of being heard. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in law and on facts in granting the approval from assessment year ... light of applicable law at the relevant time and relevant facts and circumstances of the case; after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the I.T.A. No.140/Lkw/2021 Assessment Year:2020-21 4 assessee. With these directions, all the grounds of appeal are treated as disposed of. (C) In the result

Nageshwara Charitable Trust, Nagpur vs. CIT Exemption Pune, Pune

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

ITA 371/NAG/2023[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur19 Mar 2024AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.371/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : N.A. Nageshwara Charitable The Commissioner Of Trust, V Income Tax, Exemption, 101, Laxmi Vilas Apartment, S Pune. Khare Town, Rangole Marg, Dharampeth, Nagpur, Maharashtra – 440010. Pan: Aaatn2648F Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kapil Hirani – Ar Revenue By Shri Kailash C.Kanojiya – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 18/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 19/03/2024 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 03.11.2022. The Ld.Cit(E) Dismissed The Application Of The Assessee On The Ground That Nageshwara Charitable Trust [A]

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 257Section 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) ……. 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune in the case of the Assessee held that the Activities of the Assessee had commenced

Nageshwara Charitable Trust, Nagpur vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 370/NAG/2023[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur19 Mar 2024AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.370/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : N.A. Nageshwara Charitable The Commissioner Of Trust, V Income Tax, Exemption, 101, Laxmi Vilas Apartment, S Pune. Khare Town, Rangole Marg, Dharampeth, Nagpur, Maharashtra – 440010. Pan: Aaatn2648F Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kapil Hirani – Ar Revenue By Shri Kailash C.Kanojiya – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 18/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 19/03/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Exemption, Pune Dated 16.10.2023 Passed Under Section 12Ab Of The Act. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : Nageshwara Charitable Trust [A]

Section 12ASection 282

reasons beyond the control of the Appellant and also the Honorable CIT (Exemption). Due to this, Appellant did not receive an opportunity of being heard.” 2 Nageshwara Charitable Trust [A] 2.1 The ld.AR submitted that assessee is eligible for 12AB registration. Submission of ld.DR : 3. Ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR ... case, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order of ld.CIT(E) to ld.CIT(E) for denovo adjudication after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purpose. 3 Nageshwara Charitable Trust [A] 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee

Pegasystems Worldwide India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 2390/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bharadwaj, ARFor Respondent: Shri K. Meghnath Chowhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

Officer for passing a fresh order on merits on considering the vouchers that will be produced by the assessee and after affording the opportunity of being heard. Grounds of appeal are answered accordingly. 11. In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

M/S. Strenuous Exim Pvt. Ltd., Howrah vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kolkata.

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

ITA 896/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 144

with the direction to re-examine the issue 3 AY: 2012-13 M/s. Strenuous Exim Pvt. Ltd. afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. On the other hand, ld. DR objected to such prayer made by the assessee. 6. We after hearing the rival submission ... remand back the whole issue to the file of AO with the direction to re-examine the issue afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to furnish supporting documents before the AO as and when asked by the AO. In terms

Vasudev Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-5(3), Kolkata.

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

ITA 723/KOL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Mar 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Amit Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 144Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 263

meritorious disposal of the grounds taken by the assessee, by passing a speaking order. Needless to say that assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any submission it wants to make in support of its grounds of appeal. Accordingly, grounds taken by the assessee are allowed

M/S Landmark Exim Pvt Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 521/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Bansal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vineet Kumar, JCIT
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 263Section 68

that the Ld. CI.T(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex parte without allowing the appellant any proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard. 2 Landmark Exim Pvt. Ltd., AY 2012-13 3. For that the order passed by the Ld. C.I.T (A) is bad in law since ... ground/s of appeal on or before hearing of the appeal.” 3. Vide ground nos. 2, 3 and 4 assessee has contended that reasonable opportunity of being heard was not afforded to it to represent its case before the Ld. CIT(A) and that the grounds of appeal have not been

Deshpande Drugs Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(3), Bengaluru

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

ITA 893/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, S., Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 37(1)Section 68

giving such opportunity. Therefore, considering the principle of natural justice, we remit the appeal to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh consideration after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per the above CBDT Notification and decision as per law. The assessee is directed to follow the directions

Lalitkumar Mohanlalji Sakhla, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 31 (2), Mumbai

ITA 3848/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manish Ajudiya, D.R

circumstances of the case that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order for want of prosecution by the assessee and an opportunity of being heard is required to be given to the assessee to decide the issue once for all. So the delay of 89 days in filing ... decided. To decide the issue once for all the impugned order is liable to be set aside to provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Consequently the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside to be decided afresh after providing adequate opportunity of being

Chander Mohan, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 49(1), Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 119/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Delhi19 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 144

aside the orders of authorities below and restore the matter to the file of learned AO for assessment denovo after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes. 4. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court

Dilip Kumar, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-36(6), Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 100/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Delhi19 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

aside the orders of authorities below and restore the matter to the file of learned 4 AO for decision afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes. 4. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open

Wisteria Advertisement Private Limited, H vs. ITO Ward -2(3), Faridabad, C. R. Building

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3278/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3278/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(b)

deciding the appeal of assessee on merits of the case, dismissed the appeal on account of delay in filing without providing any reasonable opportunity of being heard during the course of appellate proceeding. It is necessary to state that appeal was decided within a short span of almost three weeks ... rival parties, this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 19/03/2024 (C.N. PRASAD

Industrial Security and Management Services, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle-5(1)(1), Gb Nagar, Noida

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

ITA 2716/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaindustrial Security & Vs. Acit, Management Services, Circle-5(1)(1), 655, Sector-37, Gb Gb Nagar, Noida Nagar, Noida, Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabfi4657R

For Appellant: Mr. Supriya Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sandip Kumar Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

case, the learned CIT(A), ITD has erred both on facts and in law in passing the order without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in clear violation of the principle of natural justice 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned

Nikon India Private Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1628/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia-

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(8)Section 154Section 92BSection 92C

transaction' under chapter X of the Act, by the AO / DRP / TPO, contrary to law in as much the AO neither granted any opportunity of being heard to the Appellant, nor passed a speaking order recording his satisfaction in relation to characterisation / categorization of the AMP expenditure as an 'international

Nishithkumar Dineshkumar Shah, Ahmedabad vs. Commissioner of Income Tax NFAC, New Delhi

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

ITA 1076/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Ms. Madhumita Roy (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nitin M. Pathak, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)

with the above conditions, we remit the issue to the file of the ld. A.O. to dispose of the same upon giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and upon considering the evidence on record and any other evidence which the assessee may I.T.A No. 1076/Ahd/2023

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Tirupati vs. Devapatla Subhadramma, Tirupati

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

ITA 581/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.581/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Income Tax Officer Vs. Smt. Devapatla Ward – 1 (1) Subhadramma Tirupati Tirupati Pan:Ayqps6231H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A.Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18/03/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri K.A.Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 143(2)Section 144

that those cheques were not encashed by him. The Assessing Officer shall decide the issue as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. The 3rd and 4th grounds raised by the Revenue are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes

Star Tradecom Private Limited., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 9(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 52/KOL/2023[2009-2010]Status: FixedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Vikas Surana, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 263

directions of the Ld. CIT and taking into consideration the material on record. Needless to say that assessee should be given reasonable opportunity of being heard to make submissions in respect of its claim as well as the details called by the AO pursuant to directions given

Ranisati Hosiery (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-4, Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1278/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1278/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ranisati Hosiery (P) Ltd…….….…………............…...……………....Appellant Siddha Weston, Room No.126, 9, Weston Street, Kolkata – 700013. [Pan: Aafcr2959B] Vs. Pcit-4, Kolkata…………..….............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rajeeva Kumar & Giridhar Dhelia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 31, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 18, 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 12.03.2019 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pcit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. As Per The Note Of The Registry, The Appeal Is Time Barred By 1722 Days. A Separate Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed Which Is Further Supported With The Affidavit Of Shri Bhupendra Bansal, Director Of The Assessee Company. It Has Been Explained That The Impugned Order Dated 12.03.2019. That The Copy Of The Order Was Not Served Upon The Assessee. That The Assessee Came To Know About The Passing Of The Impugned Order Only After The Receipt Of The Subsequent Assessment Order Passed U/S 144 R.W.S. 263 Of The Act. The Assessee

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 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 necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances