“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

Deep Additives Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3) Previously Ward- 1(1)(4), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 929/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 929/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Deep Additives Private Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ Limited Ward-1(1)(3), Vs. 39/40, Nagarwel Ind. [Previously Ward-1(1)(4)) Estate, Nagarwel Hanuman Ahmedabad Road, Rakhial, Ahmedabad 380023 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aakcs7792Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) None अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C S Sharma, Sr. Dr 19 & 26/02/2024 Date Of Hearing 27/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 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 25.08.2023 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Arising Out Of The Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed By The Ito, Ward-1(1)(4), Ahmedabad, Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act For Assessment Year 2014-15. Ita No. 929/Ahd/2023 (Deep Additives Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito) A.Y.– 2014-15 - 2 – 2. None For The Appellant Appeared Before Us At The Time Of Hearing Of The Matter.

For Respondent: Shri C S Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

parte and finalized. Hence, in order to prevent the miscarriage of justice, we find it fit and proper to grant a further opportunity of being heard to the assessee and hence setting aside the issue to the file of Ld. AO with a direction upon him to pass a reasoned ... order upon granting opportunity of being heard to the assessee and upon considering the evidence on records or any other evidence which the assessee may choose to file at the time of hearing of the matter. We also make it clear that in the event the assessee fails

Shakuntala Govindrao Varude, Dhule vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Dhule

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 119/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: CA Rohit S TapadiyaFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav K Singh

Section 144

through their learned authorised representatives that both the lower authorities have passed ex-parte order. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that opportunity of being heard is denied by the authorities below and therefore, he prayed that the matter may be 2 ITA.No.119/PUN./2024 restored back ... appearing for the assessee. This is for the precise reason that the authorities below has passed an ex-parte order without providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per the settled legal proposition ‘Audi-alteram- partem’ and nowhere discussed merits of the issues raised therein once

Nagubabu Kuchibhotla, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 28/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri R.K. Panda, Vice-आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.28/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Shri Nagubabu Vs. Income Tax Officer Kuchibhotla Ward-12(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Ahlpk3559L (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Adv. P Prabhakara Murthy राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/02/2024 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.02.2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac, Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2020-21. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Order Of The Learned Cit(A)Nfac In Upholding The Disallowance Of Rs.4,40,939/- Being Foreign Tax Credit Claimed By The Assessee By Way Of Tax Relief U/S 90 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. Page 1 Of 7

For Appellant: Adv. P Prabhakara MurthyFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

similar direction to allow the FTC of Rs. 4,40,939/- after due verification. Needless to say the Assessing Officer shall give due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue as per fact and law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee

Halmira Estate Tea Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

ITA 382/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 382/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Halmira Estate Tea Private Limited Principal Commissioner Of 23, Pankaj Mullick Sarani Vs Income Tax (2), Kolkata Ballygunge Circular Road Kolkata - 700019 [Pan : Aaach6210N] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.J. Bhide, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/11/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/02/2024 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 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – 2, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Dt. 10/06/2020, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That On The Facts Of The Case The Order Passed By Pcit(2) Kolkata On 10.06.2020 U/S Of The Act, Is Bad In Law. 2. That The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer On 10.11.2017 U/S. 143(3) After Due Consideration Of Documents Submitted By The Appellant Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Revenue & Therefore The Order Appealed Against Be Cancelled.”

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Bhide, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

without making any addition in the assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 10.11.2017". In view of the above, you are hereby allowed an opportunity of being heard, either personally or through an authorized representative, in my office at Room no 60, 3rd floor, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata

Hansika Jain, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 5(4), Jaipur

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

ITA 766/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri H.M. Singhvi (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 10(38)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

assessee prayed that the Id. CIT(A) has passed the ex-parte order and the assessee was not provided adequate opportunity of being heard. Thus, the assessee may be provided one more opportunity to advance his arguments/submissions before the ld. CIT(A) in the interest of equity and justice

Smt. Pinki Chetan Shah, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/ACIT, ITO-20(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3629/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Govind Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Yogendra T. Wakare, DR

Section 2Section 56(2)(x)

date of respective allotment letters. In the limited set aside, the AO shall take appropriate decision in accordance with law after affording adequate opportunity of being heard.” 9. In assessee's case the advance payment is made through account payee check and the allotment letter with the terms of balance

N P Textile Agency, Mulund, Mumbai vs. DCIT 41(2)(1), Bkc

ITA 3343/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. N.P. Textile Agency, National Assessment D/7-8, Indraprasth Society, Centre, Sarvodaya Nagar, New Delhi/ Dy. Vs. Mulund (West), Commissioner Of Income Mumbai – 400 080 Tax, Pan: Aaifn5003C Circle 41(2)(1), Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Athavale, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Abastha, D.R.

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Athavale, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Abastha, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 40

ever been received. Even otherwise to impart the justice and to decide the 4 M/s. N.P. Textile Agency issue once for all opportunity of being heard is required to be given to the assessee. For argument sake even if it is assumed that notices were served upon the assessee ... passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby set aside and remitted back to him [CIT(A)] for deciding afresh after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court

Silver Brook Financial Learning Centre Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO - 5(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 6420/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

For Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 40A(2)(a)

Assessing Officer who shall decide the issue afresh as per law after taking the same into consideration and after granting the Appellant reasonable opportunity of being heard. Thus, Ground No. 2 to 4 raised by the Appellant are allowed for statistical purposes. Ground No. 5 21. Ground No. 5 pertains ... travel expenses of INR 2,57,800/- back to the file of Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication after granting the Appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Thus, Ground No. 5 raised by the Appellant is allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No. 6420/MUM/2018 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) 27. We would

Ganesh Atmaram Mokashe, Pune vs. DCIT Cen Cir 39, Mumbai

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

ITA 7459/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: ShriPrayag Jha

Section 132Section 153A

years under consideration and restore all the issues to the files of the AO for passing the order afresh. After affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the Assessing officer may take appropriate decision in accordance with the law. 4 ITA No.7458 & 7459/M/2023

Ganesh Atmaram Mokashe, Pune vs. DCIT Cen Cir 39, Mumbai

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

ITA 7458/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

Section 132Section 153A

V and S International Private Limited, Gurugram vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range-9, New Delhi

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

ITA 3242/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sh. Suraj Bhan Nain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Sr. DR

disallowance of Rs.10,39,37,500/- ignoring the fact the ld. Assessing Officer has made the said disallowance without giving proper and adequate opportunity of being heard and thus 2 V & S International Pvt. Ltd. the disallowance was made against the principles of natural justice.” 3. On going through

Mobase India Pvt. Ltd., Uttar Pradesh vs. ACIT, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 243/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumara.Y. : 2016-17 Mobase India Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Acit, 1C, Front Part Of Front Building, National E-Assessment Centre, Udyog Vihar, Ecotech-Ii, Greater New Delhi. Noida 201306, Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecd 8832 G Assessee By : Sh. Rajesh Dua, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 06.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.02.2024

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Dua, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 2Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43(6)Section 43B

issuing directions. g. Every direction issued by DRP shall be binding on the AO/NeAC. h. No direction shall be issued without granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee or AO/NeAC. i. No direction shall be issued after 9 months in which Draft Assessment Order is forwarded to eligible ... conformity with the directions, complete, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 153 [or section 153B], the assessment without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee, within one month from the end of the month in which such direction is received.], the AO was not empowered

Superior Agro Crops Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, CC-6, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1613/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI DR. B.R.R. KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 68

facts, in partially confirming the order framed by the Ld. AO u/s. 143(3) and that too without giving an adequate opportunity of being heard, therefore, the additions made as such as per Grounds of Appeals No. 2 may be liable to be deleted. 6. That having regards

Shivam Industries, Delhi vs. ACIT, CC-6, Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1612/DEL/2021[2017-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2024AY 2017-19

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

Escorts Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 792/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: PendingITAT Delhi27 Feb 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadm/S. Escorts Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 3, 11, Scindia House, New Delhi. Connaught Circus, New Delhi. (Pan : Aaace0074B) Dcit, Central Circle 3, Vs. M/S. Escorts Limited, New Delhi. 11, Scindia House, Connaught Circus, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT DR

shall consider the issue afresh and shall keep in mind our observations herein above. Needless to add, assessee should be given an opportunity of being heard. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 11. Apropos prior period expenses : The AO made disallowance of previous year expenditure by observing as under

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Escorts Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1313/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2024AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT DR

Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

ITA 1172/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, With Shri DhrunalBhatt, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35Section 43BSection 80

under: “ Under section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal may, after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit. The power of the Tribunal in dealing with appeals is thus expressed in the widest

Nimmagadda Sridevi, Secunderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income, Circle - 3(2), Basheerbagh, Hyderabad

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

ITA 4/HYD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 4/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Nimmagadda Sridevi, Deputy Commissioner Of Secunderabad Vs. Income Tax, [Pan: Actpn4924B] Circle-3(2), Hyderabad अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध / Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध / Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 08/02/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 26/02/2024

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

restore the appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A) to take a fresh view in accordance with law, affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court

Gradiente Infotainment Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 508/HYD/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 508/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Gradiente Infotainment Asst. Commissioner Of Limited, Vs. Income Tax, Hyderabad Central Circle-1(2), [Pan: Aaccg1241Q] Hyderabad अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध / Assessee By: Smt. S. Sandhya, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध / Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 26/02/2024

For Appellant: Smt. S. Sandhya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

Section 144

restore the appeal to the file of the learned Assessing Officer to take a fresh view in accordance with law, affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court

Aniruddha Banerjee, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 29, Kolkata

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

ITA 690/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

remand back the instant issue to the file of AO with the direction to re-examine the issue involved after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue in accordance with law. 4. We After hearing the submissions of the parties and examine the issue ... purposes. 5. However, it is clarified that while doing so, the ld. AO should give appropriate notice to the assessee by providing reasonable opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed