← 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

Shri Krishan Kanchan Sewa Trust, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemptions Jaipur, Jaipur

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

ITA 763/JPR/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2024

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Atul Kumar Gokhru, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 12A

circumstances of the appellant case and in law the ld.CIT(E), Jaipur erred in passing ex-parte order without giving the appellant an opportunity of being heard. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the appellant case and in law, the ld. CIT(E) erred in rejecting the claim ... Activities.’’ 3.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee mainly submitted that the assessee was not provided adequate opportunity of being heard by the ld. CIT(E) and the assessee should be given one more chance to contest the case before

Sri Praja Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 28/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Sri Praja Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Vs. Ito, No.1, 3Rd Main Road, Nagappa Block, Ward – 2(2)(1), Sriramapura, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 021. Pan : Aaajs 1557 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Srinivas Bharath, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Srinivas Bharath, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Board. No order rejecting the application under section 119(2)(b) of the Act shall be passed without providing the applicant an opportunity of being heard.” 8. On identical facts, the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal by following ITAT order of the Chennai Bench in the case of Papathiyammal Pitchai

Shree Vaish Aggrawal Samaj Chawla Colony Ballabgarh, Ballabgarh vs. CIT Exemption, Chandigarh

Appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2384/DEL/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Mar 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2023-24

Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

rejected the application made under clause (iii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Act without granting proper opportunity of being heard. 3. That on the facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per the provisions of the law, held that the order

Surinder Singh Seehra, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, New Delhi

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

ITA 1513/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Yogesh Kumarsurinder Singh Seehra Vs. Dcit N-82, Street No.4, Central Circle-01, Vishnu Garden, Tilak Nagar, Delhi West Delhi, New Delhi – 110018 Pan No. Gxkps 4475 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anmol Sinha, Adv. Revenue By Shri Dharamvir Singh, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.03.2024

Section 153A

remit the issue to the file of learned CIT(A). Learned CIT(A) shall pass a speaking order after giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard. 6. In the result, appeal by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 06.03.2024 (YOGESH KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT

M/S Crown Milk Specialties Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh vs. JCIT, OSD, Cl-4(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 250/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 154Section 250Section 43B

issued only one notice for seven days on 20.03.2023 and wrongly rejected the appeal of the appellant company without providing proper opportunity of being heard. 4. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has wrongly upheld the addition made u/s 154 without issue of notice

Prahlad Dutt Lata, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-35(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 265/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 265/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Prahlad Dutt Lata Income Tax Officer, Ward – Vs 35(1), Kolkata Urvashi Apartment 3, Hunger Ford Street Kolkata - 700017 [Pan : Aaxpl1559J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/03/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 2, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 13/08/2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 86 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. There Is A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit & The Reason For The Said Delay Is Mainly On Account Of Old Age Of The Assessee & The Delay On The Part Of The Person Who Received The Envelope Sent From The Office Of The Ld. Cit(A) Which Was Required To Be Handed Over To The Assessee. On Perusal Of The Affidavit, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented For Reasonable Cause

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 10(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 154Section 234BSection 250

flagrant violation of principles of natural justice as the same has been passed in a biased manner, without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard, without properly considering the submissions furnished before the A.O., using by the A.O. the material collected behind the back of the appellant without confronting the same

Hari Narayan Meena, Jaipur vs. Income-Tax Officer Ward 2(5), Jaipur

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

ITA 56/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Which Was Being Handled By The Earlier Authorized Representative & The Information & Details Of The Case Had Been Provided To The Assessee Recently Only.

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Sharma (Adv.)
Section 143(3)

Narayan Meena. vs.ITO Assessing Officer is directed to examine the contention of the assessee and pass suitable order a fresh after giving sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Based on these set of facts we hold to remand back the matter to the file

Shri Amritlal Futarmal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-4(1)(3) (Erstwhile the ACIT, Circle-18(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3781/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms. Padmavathy, Am

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi erred in passing order u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without providing proper opportunity of being heard. The order is bad, illegal, void and against the provisions of law and natural justice The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC

Sacho Satram Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 28(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3762/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Rtd.) C.V. Bhadang () & Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

learned CIT(A) is set aside and all issues are restored to his file for adjudicating them afresh after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also direct the assessee to fully cooperate with the learned CIT(A) for expeditious disposal of the appeal

Amadeus It Group Sa, Spain vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3175/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B.Vasanta, CIT-DR

appellant liable to tax in India as ‘royalty’ for the alleged use of Altea system by various airlines, without affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant, in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Re: Charge of interest 17. That the DRP/ assessing officer erred on facts

Sachin Dhamija, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 36(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 2932/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyasachin Dhamija, Vs. Ito, Ward 36 (3), C-361, Majlis Park, Gali No.9, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 033. (Pan : Ajipd2855R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Saurabh Rohtagi, Ca Shri Ashok Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.02.2024 Date Of Order : 04.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Rohtagi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 50CSection 50C(2)

issue to the file of AO. AO shall consider the issue afresh and decide the case as per law after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court

Superb Mind Holding Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle Int Tax 3(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1568/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1568/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19

Section 112Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

erred in law and on facts in making the addition in the hands of assessee, I.T.A.No.1568/Del/2022 without giving any fair and proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant and further, relying on case laws not applicable to the facts of the assessee – appellant and not taking into account

Sh. Pardeep Kumar, Ambala vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 72/CHANDI/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 263

pass a fresh order in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made in the impugned order and after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 9. Against the said findings and directions of the Ld. Pr. CIT, the assessee is in appeal before us. 10. During

Jarina Begum, Kota vs. ITO Ward -1(4), Kota

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

ITA 675/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Mar 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.) &
Section 120Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 234ASection 68

well as on the facts of the case in passing the impugned order ex-parte, in a haste without affording adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard. The impugned order having been framed in gross breach of natural justice, kindly be quashed or alternatively be restored to the file ... that the Id. CIT(A) and the AO both have passed the order ex-parte order and the assessee was not provided adequate opportunity of being heard. As the Id. AO passed the order ex- parte without appreciation of the fact that the amount deposited

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jaipur vs. Mukesh Kumar Soni, Jaipur

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

ITA 656/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. S. B. Natani (FCA)For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148A

narrated above No. 1,2,3,6 & 7 are hereby dismissed. Ground No.4:- The appellant has contented he has not been granted proper opportunity of being heard during the assessment proceedings. The claimed made by the appellant is not borne out from the assessment order wherein ... rightly been invoked looking to the facts discussed the ld. AO in his assessment order. The assessee was given various opportunity of being heard but the has not submitted the correct details as requested by the ld. AO. The bills submitted by the assessee are not having the complete name

Associated Soapstone Distributing Co Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Jaipur

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

ITA 243/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Mar 2024AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(ii)Section 37Section 43B

aside on the issues as discussed above and the AO is directed to examine the issues and pass suitable order after according opportunity of being heard to the assessee.”’ 2.3 During the course of hearing the ld. AR of the assessee regarding Issue No. 1 to Issue

Veetil Kizhakke Nirmal, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(6), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 8/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Tarun, G., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 192BSection 270A

file of the CIT(Appeals) to consider all these facts and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law, after affording assessee opportunity of being heard. 7. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.” 4.1 Further, similar view has been taken in the case

Veetil Kizhakke Nirmal, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(6), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 7/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Tarun, G., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 192BSection 270A

file of the CIT(Appeals) to consider all these facts and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law, after affording assessee opportunity of being heard. 7. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.” 4.1 Further, similar view has been taken in the case

Deepak Enterprises, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-32(1), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 2272/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Bhargva, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

percent expenses incurred on account of Research & Development of Rs.7,57,500/- under section 37(1) of the Act, without giving the opportunity of being heard. 2. That Ld. JCIT has erred in law as much as on the facts of the case by arbitrary disallowing expenses of Rs.8 ... incurred on account of additional sales tax/fee under section 37(1) of the act, without giving the opportunity of being heard to the appellant. However, the claim made by the appellant for the said expenses was bonafide. 3. That Ld. JCIT has erred in law as much

Deepak Enterprises, New Delhi vs. JCIT Range-32, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 2263/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Bhargva, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

percent expenses incurred on account of Research & Development of Rs.7,57,500/- under section 37(1) of the Act, without giving the opportunity of being heard. 2. That Ld. JCIT has erred in law as much as on the facts of the case by arbitrary disallowing expenses of Rs.8 ... incurred on account of additional sales tax/fee under section 37(1) of the act, without giving the opportunity of being heard to the appellant. However, the claim made by the appellant for the said expenses was bonafide. 3. That Ld. JCIT has erred in law as much