“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

People for Animal, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 1380/KOL/2023[00]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Feb 2024

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 7

registration should be granted as per the revised application filed by the assessee incorporating the correct Section code. Needless to mention that proper opportunity of being heard should be provided to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and file necessary documents, if considered necessary, in support

People for Animals, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 1379/KOL/2023[00]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Feb 2024

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 7

Ram Patel, Sanawad vs. ITO Khargone, Khargone

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

ITA 355/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 115BSection 133ASection 68

erred in law and facts of the case and passed an order on ex parte basis without giving the assessee the opportunity of being heard. 2.The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case and assessed the total income ... erred in law and facts of the case and passed an order on ex parte basis without giving the assessee the opportunity of being heard 2.The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case and assessed the total income at Rs. 19,15,280/- as against

Ram Patel, Sanawad Khargone vs. ACIT Khandwa, Khandwa

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

ITA 354/IND/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 115BSection 133ASection 68

Babulal Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 17/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Gupta (CA) &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 292B

facts and circumstances of the case the aforesaid matter be restored before the Ld. A.O. so that the assessee gets the opportunity of being heard to represent his case. As during the assessment proceedings, the assessee did not get fair chance to represent his case before the Ld. AO even

Desire Foundation, Jaipur vs. ITO Exemption Ward -1, Jaipur

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

ITA 669/JPR/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Feb 2024

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia(CA)For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik(CIT)( V.H.)

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)Section 80g

that during the course of hearing in the appeal, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed that he was deprived off availing adequate opportunity of being heard by the ld. CIT(E) in the application for registration/recognition as the application for 12AA has been given permission to re-apply

Crystal City Mall Private Limited, Santacruz (West), Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 12 (1) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3867/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3867/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Crystal City Mall Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ National E-Assessment 2Nd Floor, Crystal Shopping Centre, Delhi Vs. Arcade, Opp. Indian Bank, Ito, Ward-12(1)(1) S. V. Road, Santacruz Aayakar Bavan, Mumbai- (West), Mumbai-400054. 400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcc4943J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rahul Hakani Revenue By: Shri H. M. Bhatt (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 27.09.2023 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Pointed Out That The Impugned Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is An Exparte Order; & He Also Pointed Out That The Ao Has Passed The Order U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) I.E. Best Judgment Assessment. According To The Ld. Ar, The Assessee Was Unable To Attend Before The Ao Inter-Alia On Account Of Covid-19 Pandemic & For The Following Reasons As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri H. M. Bhatt (Sr. DR)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 68

authority, that reads thus : "We will straightway agree with the assessee's submission that the ITO had not given to the assessee proper opportunity of being heard." 4 A.Y. 2018-19 Crystal City Mall Pvt. Ltd That the assessee could have placed evidence before the first appellate authority or before ... aside the order of assessment and remand the matter to the assessing authority for fresh assessment after giving to the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard. 2. Two questions were placed before the High Court, of which the second question is not pressed. The first question reads thus

Priyadarshani Construction, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 28(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 3760/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble

Section 250Section 68Section 69A

file of the Ld. CIT(A) for examination. Further, Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that Ld.CIT(A) passed exparte order without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, therefore, considering additions/disallowance Page 2 ITA NO. 3760/MUM/2023 (A.Y: 2011-12) Priyadarshani Construction made by the Assessing Officer, Ld. Counsel ... keeping in view _ the additions/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, we are of the opinion that assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard. 6. Further, on a perusal of the additional evidences furnished before us, we are of the view that these evidences go to the root

Nirwan Monetary Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3745/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Maheshwari, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. Arunkumar, D.R

Section 143(3)

parte for want of prosecution by the assessee. In these circumstances, it is proved that the assessee has not been provided with adequate opportunity of being heard. To decide the issue once for all and in the interest of justice the impugned order passed ... hereby set aside to be decided afresh by the Ld. CIT(A) after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 10. Resultantly, both the appeals filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2011-12 & 2013-14 are hereby allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court

Nirwan Monetary Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3744/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Maheshwari, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. Arunkumar, D.R

Section 143(3)

M/S. Muniraj Synthetics (I) Pvt Ltd. Company, Thane vs. DCIT, Circle-10(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 3716/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Reepal G. Tralshawala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. Arunkumar, D.R

Section 68

that no further notice has ever been received by the assessee. 9. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that adequate opportunity of being heard has not been given to the assessee. To decide the issue once for all the Ld. CIT(A) is required to decide ... violation of principle of natural justice, hence set aside. Case is remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide afresh after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 10. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court

Lalit Ratanchand Jagawat, Mumbai vs. Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-23(2) Mumbai, Mumbai

ITA 3709/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 69A

outset, submitted that the appeal preferred by the Appellant before the CIT(A) has been disposed off without granting Appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard. He submitted that the Appellant was not served with proper notice of hearing. The notice for hearing was served on the 'mahendra.jain_1950@yahoo

Mohd Shahid Mohd Yusuf Qureshi, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 2788/MUM/2023[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri.Narender Kumar Choudhry () & Miss. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 131Section 132Section 144Section 250

before the Ld.Commissioner, the order passed by the Ld.Commissioner is more or less is an exparte order which resulted into denial of proper opportunity of being heard. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the assessee may be provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard. We have given thoughtful consideration

Diversey India Hygiene Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

Accordingly, the ground raised by the appellant is allowed

ITA 1243/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 234CSection 250Section 80G

relation to the claim of deduction of INR 8,45,167/- claimed under Section 80G of the Act after granting Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is clarified that the Assessing Officer shall be free to also call for information/details from the donees/charities. In terms of the aforesaid ... No.1243 & 1283//Mum/2023 Assessment Year 2017-18 the Act. The Assessing Officer is directed to provide to the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. All the rights and contention of both the parties are left open. It is clarified that in case the Assessing Officer arrives at the conclusion

Xyata Life Science Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 27(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2819/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Naman Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

said: "We will straightaway agree with the assessee's submissions that the Income Tax Officer had not given to the assessee proper opportunity of being heard." b) In Jawahar Lal Chawla vs ACIT ITA No. 3844/DEL/2010, the assesse's adjournment was rejected by CIT(A). The Hon'ble 'D' Bench

Manan Jain, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-59(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 2513/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Manan Jain, Vs Ito, Plot No.12, Kh 9/8, 9/13/2, Ward -59(4), Loni Road, Jawahar Nagar, New Delhi. Delhi-110094. Pan-Bfkpj8480D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Anshul Kumar, Ca & Shri Satish Kumar, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.02.2024

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order of assessment has been framed without granting fair and meaningful opportunity of being heard in respect of the additional facts being used by the Ld. Income Tax Officer Ward 59(4), Delhi ('the Ld. AO') in the assessment proceedings against ... general in nature, needs no 5. separate adjudication hence, dismissed. Ground No.2 raised by the assessee is against not providing fair 6. opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld.CIT(A) did not consider the submission of the assessee

Surinder Kumar Daima, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 63(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1848/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Deepti Chandola, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 57

remitted to the file of AO. AO shall decide the issue afresh after considering the additional evidence being submitted and after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.” 5. In the absence ... matter to the file of the AO to decide the issue afresh after considering the additional evidence being submitted and after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in the Open Court

Natasha Kohli, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-8, New Delhi

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

ITA 1792/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharatr Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 17(2)(iv)Section 69

facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the order has been passed by the AO without affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts ... fair to both the parties, we restore this issue to the file of the AO for decision afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The AO would verify the correctness of the claim of the assessee that the account in question was never operated

Sugandh Sahil Gupta, Bhavnagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Bhavnagar

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

ITA 1050/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1050/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Sugandh Sahil Gupta The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ D-145/146, Ramnagar Ward - 1(5), Bhavnagar Vs. Kaliyabid, Bhavnagar, Gujarat - 364001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afgpl1612Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri P. B. Parmar, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C S Sharma, Sr. Dr 21/02/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 28/02/2024 O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.09.2023 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Arising Out Of The Order Dated 23.12.2019 Passed By The Ito, Ward - 1(5), Bhavnagar, Under Section 143(3) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Appeal Is Time Barred By 19 Days. An Application Alongwith Affidavit Explaining Such Delay Has Also Been Filed By The Appellant. The Contents Whereof Is As Follows:

For Respondent: Shri C S Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

germane to the issue of cash deposit involved in the matter and was practically gathering those documents. He, therefore, prays for a further opportunity of being heard by the Ld. AO to enable him to represent the appellant’s case in its proper spirit. Certain additional evidences have also been ... regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we upon admitting these additional evidences find it fit and proper to provide further opportunity of being heard to the appellant on the ITA No. 1050/Ahd/2023 (Sugandh Sahil Gupta vs. ITO) A.Y.– 2017-18 - 4 – proposed addition

Karia Hareshbhai Bhagwandas HUF, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(3)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 175/AHD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2012-13 Karia Hareshbhai Bhagwandas The Income Tax Officer Huf Vs Ward-1(3)(3), 2, B/618, B.G.Tower Ahmedabad Outside Delhi Gate Shahibaugh Ahmedabad – 380 004 (Gujarat) Pan: Aachk 6847 B अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ahsok Kumar Suthar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22/02/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ahsok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144

learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in passing an Ex Parte order without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant hence the same being against the principles of natural justice and equity require to be quashed. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals