“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

Pooja Hardware Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT - 13 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3712/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Vipul Joshi &For Respondent: Mr. H.M. Bhatt, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 35Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(1)(ii)

proposed reassessment objections raised by the assessee to the proposed reassessment objections raised by the assessee to the proposed reassessment after furnishing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In after furnishing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In after furnishing an opportunity of being heard

ITO, Ward- 22(2), New Delhi vs. Saivi Finance Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

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

ITA 3886/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

copies thereof were not provided and the case was finally treated as discussed on 25-12-2017 in denial to opportunity of being heard. 4.2 According to Section 68 of Income Tax Act 1961, where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous ... filing his response, as a principle of natural justice. Further to this, it has also been established by the Appellant Company that no opportunity of being heard and cross examination of the witness was afforded, whose statement was found to be recorded in other case at the back

Sh. Kartik Budhiraja, Fazilka vs. DCIT, CC-3, Ludhiana

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

ITA 528/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Shri Aditya Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 127Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143Section 153ASection 250(6)

dismissed the appeal on account of non-prosecution. It was submitted by the ld AR that the assessee may be provided one more opportunity of being heard and to file necessary submissions and the matter may accordingly be set-aside to the file

Sh. Kartik Budhiraja, Fazilka vs. DCIT, CC-3, Ludhiana

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

ITA 527/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Shri Aditya Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 127Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143Section 153ASection 250(6)

Sh. Kartik Budhiraja, Fazilka vs. DCIT, CC-3, Ludhiana

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

ITA 526/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Shri Aditya Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 127Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143Section 153ASection 250(6)

Saru Enterprises Private Limited, Patiala vs. ACIT/DCIT, Cen. Cir., Patiala

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 271/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saldi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. D.R

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 68Section 69Section 69A

illegal and against the facts on record. 2. That CIT(A) has passed the order of enhancement u/s 68 without providing any opportunity of being heard on the issue because the notice of enhancement as well as the submissions of appellant were based on the provisions of section ... show cause for enhancement of income under section 68 on account of cash credit was issued to the assessee and thus no opportunity of being heard was provided by the Ld. CIT(A). 22. It was further submitted that during the course of survey, no excess cash was found

Parth Pragati Mandal, Sabarkantha vs. The ITO(Exemption), Palanpur

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

ITA 882/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 882/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Parth Pragati Mandal The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 19, Umiya Parivar Society, (Exemption) Vs. Valasana Road, Idar, Palanpur Sabarkantha – 383430, Gujarat "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabtp4353N (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Tej Shah, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C S Sharma, Sr. Dr 21/02/2024 Date Of Hearing 23/02/2024 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 05.09.2023 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Arising Out Of The Order Dated 13.09.2021 Passed By The Ao, Nfac, Delhi, Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), Raising A Demand Of Rs.2,30,409/- For Assessment Year 2018-19, Whereby & Whereunder The Appeal Filed By The

For Respondent: Shri C S Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 80G(5)

CBDT for a maximum period of 8 months and then to finalize the issue ultimately strictly in accordance with law upon giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellant and upon considering the evidence on record and any other evidence which the appellant may choose to file

Jamalappa Dattatray Battul, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 5(2), Pune

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

ITA 452/PUN/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.452/Pun/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Mihir Naniwadekar &For Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk

Section 131Section 143(3)

stage of receipt of remand report from the AO. Needless to say, the CIT(A) shall afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 9. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 23rd day of February, 2024. /- (S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI

Basuki Vyapaar Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward- 8(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 184/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.184/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Basuki Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aaccb6156B) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(1), Kolkata. …………….. Respondent Appearances By: N O N E Appeared For Appellant. Shri Jitendra Kantilal Surti, Jcit (Dr) Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 05.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 23.02.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2013-14 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Nfac, Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 09.01.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Ito, Ward-8(1) Dated 08.03.2016. 2. When The Case Was Called Or None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. In The Past Also When The Case Was Fixed For Hearing On 06.06.2023 & 23.08.2023, There Was No Compliance. We Thus

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

grounds of appeal: “1. For that the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte without allowing the appellant any proper opportunity of being heard. 2. For that the appellant craves leave to produce additional evidences in terms of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules ... From the perusal of the above grounds, we find that main contention of the assessee is that it was not provided sufficient opportunity of being heard and also it could not produce additional evidence in terms of Rule 46A. In a nutshell the prayer of the assessee in the grounds

True-Man Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-7(2), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1158/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

following grounds of appeal: “1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), erred in passing the impugned order without granting the opportunity of being heard to the appellant assessee. 2. That the Ld. CIT (A)/NFAC, New Delhi has erred in directing the communication of hearing notice to incorrect

Somnath Saha, Kolkata vs. ITO Ward-38(4), Paschim Medinipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issue

ITA 2339/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 127(1)Section 127(2)Section 147Section 148

extracted below:- “127(1)The principal Director General or Director General or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, transfer any case from

Sree Navaladian Finance, Namakkal vs. ITO, Salem

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1157/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

under: "No order imposing penalty under this chapter shall be made unless the assessee has been heard or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard...". b) From the above language use, it is clear that the legislation did not mandate issuance of a notice for Penalty proceeding hearing ... appellate authorities. c) Now coming to the issue of, as to how the requirement of assessee to be heard and the reasonable opportunity of being heard can be met u/s 274 by without an issuance of the notice, it can be answered as under: i) Since the law does

Sree Navaladiyan Finance, Salem vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Salem

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1156/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Sreenavaladian Finance, Salem vs. DCIT, Centralcircle, Salem

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1155/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Sree Navaladiyan Finance, Namakkal vs. DCIT, Cent Circle, Salem

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1154/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Nataraja Kailar, Bantwal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Mangalore

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

ITA 96/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S. Srinivas Kamath, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)

case. Accordingly, we remit the appeal to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh consideration and decision as per law, Page 4 of 4 reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to produce all the relevant documents to substantiate its claim and avoid seeking unnecessary adjournment

North Facing Real Tech Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 976/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Snehal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

decided the issue as per law. Needless Page 9 of 9 to say that the CIT(A) is directed to give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue as per law. The assessee is directed to produce the necessary documents for substantiating its case

Byndoor Sudhindra Shet, Karnatka vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Udupi

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

ITA 826/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Raghav Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69B

same has been passed against the guidelines/circular of CBDT and violating the principle of natural justice by not providing the ample opportunity of being heard. 2 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of the law, the Ld. CIT (Appeal) has failed to appreciate that ... same has been passed against the guidelines/circular of cum and violating the principle of natural justice by not providing the ample opportunity of being heard and passing the order without 3 That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law In Sustaining the addition Of Rs.1

Addl CIT 8(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Sanofi India Limited (Formerly Known As M/S. Aventis Pharma Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

ITA 6698/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra (CIT-DR) &

Section 32Section 32(1)

compute disallowance on the same basis in the year under consideration after taking requisite details from the assessee and giving opportunity of being heard by following the principle of natural justice. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 6698 M 2011 & C.O. No. 165 M 2012-Sanofi India Limited

Addl CIT RG 8(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Sanofi India Limited (Formerly Known As M/S. Aventis Pharma Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

ITA 7712/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra (CIT-DR) &

Section 32Section 32(1)