← 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

Bhagirath Yadav, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

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

ITA 742/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: This Office That The Appellant Has Stated That The Appellant Has Invested Of Rs. 29,32,775/- In Accordance The Provision Of Section 54B Of Income Tax Act, 1961 To Purchases Agricultural Land Out Of Sale Consideration Of Rs.37,64,082/-

For Appellant: Sh. Yogesh Kumar Sharma (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 10(37)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 2(14)Section 54Section 54BSection 54DSection 54ESection 54FSection 54G

file of the ld. AO to decide the case of the assessee on merits after giving proper 10 Bhagirath Yadav vs. ITO opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same time, the assessee is directed to represent and present all the facts before the ld. AO and should

Varian Medical Systems International (India) Private Limited, Mumbaiqqq vs. Assessment Unit NFAC Cetnre ITO, Ministry of Finance Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partially allowed

ITA 2496/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain a/w Shri Siddesh
Section 143(1)Section 144CSection 234BSection 234CSection 270ASection 37(1)Section 68Section 92C

assessee based on the documentary evidences and give credit in accordance with law. Needless to say that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 38. Ground No. 1 & 11 with regard to levy of interest under section 234B & 234C and Ground No. 12 with regard to initiation

Prateek Jain, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 63(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for

ITA 3153/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya[Assessment Year: 2017-18] Prateek Jain, Ito, 4634, Gali Mohar Singhjat, Ward-63(2), Phaari Dhiraj, Vs Civic Centre Delhi-110006 Delhi-110002 Pan-Aiypj1226D Assessee Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 251Section 69A

facts and law. 2. Because the action of CIT(A)-NFAC is being challenged on facts and law for not providing reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessment order being passed is in violation of the principle of natural justice and without giving adequate time and opportunity to the appellant ... directed to consider the issue afresh and pass a speaking order on the merits of the case after giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 13th February

Ravinder Kumar, Delhi vs. ITO, Delhi

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

ITA 2816/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Passing Exparte Order Dt. 14.09.2023. Thus, Not Providing Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard.

Section 143(3)Section 69A

filed submission on E-portal dt. 29.06.2023. Moreover, none hearing notice was issued before passing Exparte order dt. 14.09.2023. Thus, not providing reasonable opportunity of being heard. 3. Because the action is being challenged on facts and law for making addition of Rs. 61,50,000 by treating cash deposit

Rameshwar Shaw, Howrah vs. ITO, 48(3), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing

ITA 841/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 841/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Rameshwar Shaw,....................................Appellant 12/5, Musalmanpara Lane, Banta, Howrah-711101 [Pan: Amaps0893D] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-48(3), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001 Appearances By: Shri Debabrata Ghosh, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shrip.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 12, 2024

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250

grossly violated the provisions of law as well as principle of natural justice by not allowing proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard. (4) For that, Ld. C1T (A) was unjust, unfair, unreasonable and unlawful in not considering the fact that Ld.ITO had acted illegally in adding back the entire

Comviva Technologies Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle 4(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 914/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra,AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT- DR

expenses. 8. We, accordingly, direct the Assessing Officer to verify the additional evidences and decide the issue afresh after affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Ground No. 2.3 and 5 are allowed for statistical purposes. 9. The other grounds relate to the denial of credit ... income without assigning any reason. We direct the Assessing Officer to allow credit after due verification and after affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 914/DEL/2023 is allowed in part for statistical purposes

DCIT, Circle-3(1), New Delhi vs. Apl Apollo Tubes Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6942/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 114JSection 115Section 115J

ascertained liability. Thus, this issue is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the issue after providing adequate opportunity of being heard. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 12/02/2024. ( G.S. PANNU ) (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) VICE

Manaksia Limited, Kolkata vs. CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1339/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Section 250Section 43B

commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) was not justified and grossly erred in confirming the action of the Ld. CPC, Bengaluru without providing an opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add to and to alter, amend, rescind or modify the grounds raised hereinabove

Tejinder Singh Walia, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-30, Kolkata.

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

ITA 1337/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

instant 2 AY: 2014-15 Tejinder Singh Walia appeal may be restored to the ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard. 3. Per contra, ld. DR opposed the request made by the ld. counsel for the assessee. Since the ld. CIT(A) issued several ... adjudicating afresh to pass a speaking order after considering the submission made by the assessee for which reasonable opportunity of being heard should be provided. The assessee also directed to remain vigilant and file necessary documents in support of its grounds of appeal and should not take any further adjournment

Ajmer Industries LLP, Naya Bazar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 760/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)
Section 132Section 153ASection 271ASection 274

wherein, it directs that no order imposing penalty shall be made unless the assessee has been heard or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, from plain reading of section 271AAB of the Act, it is evident that the penalty cannot be imposed unless the assessee ... hear the assessee and to give reasonable opportunity to explain his case, there is no mandatory requirement of imposing penalty, because the opportunity of being heard and reasonable opportunity is not a mere formality but it is to adhere to the principles of natural justice. Hon'ble A.P. High Court

Prem Prakash Agarwal, Naya Bazar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 759/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)
Section 132Section 153ASection 271ASection 274

wherein, it directs that no order imposing penalty shall be made unless the assessee has been heard or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, from plain reading of section 271AAB of the Act, it is evident that the penalty cannot be imposed unless the assessee ... hear the assessee and to give reasonable opportunity to explain his case, there is no mandatory requirement of imposing penalty, because the opportunity of being heard and reasonable opportunity is not a mere formality but it is to adhere to the principles of natural justice. Hon'ble A.P. High Court

Prem Prakash Agarwal, Naya Bazar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 758/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)
Section 132Section 153ASection 271ASection 274

wherein, it directs that no order imposing penalty shall be made unless the assessee has been heard or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, from plain reading of section 271AAB of the Act, it is evident that the penalty cannot be imposed unless the assessee ... hear the assessee and to give reasonable opportunity to explain his case, there is no mandatory requirement of imposing penalty, because the opportunity of being heard and reasonable opportunity is not a mere formality but it is to adhere to the principles of natural justice. Hon'ble A.P. High Court

M/S. Rdc Ventures, Mumbai vs. PCIT-27, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1915/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Rdc Ventures Vs. Principal Commissioner Office No.-110 Of Income Tax-27 Ridhhisidhhi Premises Room No. 401, 4 Th Floor, Society, Near Sahakar Tower No. 6, Vashi Talkies Tilak Nagar, Railway Station, Chembur (West) Mumbai- Commercial Complex, 400089 Vashi, Navi Mumbai -400703 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aakfr0914Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Dhran Gandhi Respondent By : Sanyogita Nagpal Date Of Hearing 29.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2024

For Appellant: Dhran GandhiFor Respondent: Sanyogita Nagpal
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

nature of capital expenditure, the assessee is not entitled to claim it as revenue expenditure. Therefore, you are being allowed an opportunity of being heard and show- cause as to whyan order enhancing or modifying the assessment or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment within the meaning

V and S International P.Ltd, Gurgaon vs. Jt.CIT, Range-26, New Delhi

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

ITA 2328/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarshri Anubhav Sharmaasstt. Year: 2017-18 V & S International P. Ltd., Vs The Jcit, Range-26, Delhi 38 Milestone, Delhi-Jaipur Highway, Behrampur Road, Gurgaon, Haryana 122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacv 0030 A Assessee By : Sh. Suraj Bhan Nain, Adv. Sh. Mahfuzur Rehman, Ca Revenue By : Sh.Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.02.2024

For Appellant: Sh. Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh.Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

fact that the Ld. 2 V and S International P Ltd., Assessing Officer has made the said disallowance without giving proper and adequate opportunity of being heard and thus the disallowance made against the principles of natural justice.. 3. From the record, we find that the assessee has filed ... remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue afresh and after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) shall also take into consideration the submissions already filed by the assessee and in other submissions filed in response

Vigen Healthy Tech India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-26(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 6669/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarshri Anubhav Sharmaasstt. Year: 2016-17 Vigen Healthy Tech India P Ltd., Vs The Acit, Circle -26(2), Plot No. 16-17, Near Bramha New Delhi Apartment, Sector 7, Dwarka, New Delhi 110075 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcv 0003 A Assessee By : Sh. Abhijeet, Adv. Revenue By : Sh.Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.02.2024

For Appellant: Sh. Abhijeet, AdvFor Respondent: Sh.Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 37

Hence, the case is being remanded to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue on merits after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in the Open Court

Krushnkant Fogatbhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward- 1(3)(2), Vadodara

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

ITA 747/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 747/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18)

For Respondent: Shri B. P. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250

issue before it was not considered in its proper perspective, we find it fit and proper to grant a further opportunity of being heard to the appellant by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, we set aside the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for considering the issue ... afresh on merit and to pass a reasoned order upon granting an opportunity of being heard to the appellant and considering the evidence on record ITA No. 747/Ahd/2023 (Krushnkant Fogatbhai Patel vs. ITO) A.Y.– 2017-18 - 3 – or any other evidence which the appellant may choose to file

Nira vs. Inh Kishoresinh Gehlot, Indiavs.CPC, Bangalore (Present Jurisdiction -Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3)(2), Ahmedabad), Gujarat

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1068/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1068/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Niravsinh Kishoresinh Cpc बनाम/ Gehlot Bangalore Vs. Shivam Vasant Chowk, Present Jurisdiction - Dharmaj, Petlad Dist Income Tax Officer Anand, Anand, Gujarat Ward 5(3)(2), Ahmedabad 388430 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajtpg6241P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Balaji V., Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sushil Kumar Katiar, Sr. Dr 01/02/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 08/02/2024 O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Appellant Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.10.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -3, Chennai (‘Cit(A)’) Arising Out Of The Intimation Order Dated 20.03.2020 Passed By The Assessing Officer, Under Section 143(1) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. We Have Heard The Rival Submissions Made By The Respective Parties & We Have Also Perused The Relevant Materials Available On Record.

For Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Katiar, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 90

delay, if any. We, thus, direct the Ld. CIT(A) to pass orders on merit strictly in accordance with law upon giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellant and upon considering the evidence on record or any other evidence which the appellant may choose to file

Rohit Kumar Kothari, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 2/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Acocuntant Member & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 270A

back to the file of the NFAC and direct to dispose of the appeal on merits in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

Katravai Patravai AOP- Trust, Chennai vs. CIT(Exemptions) Chennai, Chennai

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

ITA 1590/CHNY/2023[--]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1590/Chny/2023 M/S. Katravai Patravai The Commissioner Of Income Tax Tnr Garden, (Exemptions), Vs. Chennai -34. 62/41, Duraiswamy Road, Vadapalani, Chennai – 600 026. Pan: Aadtk 9117F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri M. Karunakaran, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai Rejecting Form No.10Ab Dated 28.06.2023 Filed For Seeking Registration U/S.12Ab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’).

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 12A

before the CIT(Exemption) and to furnish the required details. In view of the above reasons, we are of the view that proper opportunity of being heard could not be provided or could not be availed by the assessee and hence, in the interest of justice, we set aside

Surams Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-1(2), Jaiur

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

ITA 14/JPR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Sandep Gosain & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: Sh. Manoj Kataruka, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Monisha Chaudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 69

restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter fresh on the merits of the case after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant assessee. 3. Per contra, the ld. DR though supported the impugned order, however, he has no objection to the request ... file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter afresh on the issue of unexplained commission income after grating sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee and considering the material evidence available on the record and to be filed in the fresh proceedings before