← 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

Jay Jinhasan Seva Trust, Mehsana vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 356/AHD/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jan 2024

Bench: 20.12.2022. In The Compliance The Assessee Filed The Required Details. Another Notice Was Issued By Ld. Cit(E) On 02-01-2023, Wherein It Was Stated That The Assessee Trust Submitted Part Details/Documents, Therefore Requested To Furnish The Remaining Documents On Or Before 09.01.2023. Since This Notice Does Not Specify The Deficit Documents As Required By Ld. Cit(E), The Assessee Filed The Earlier Acknowledgment With Details Filed Before Ld. Cit(E).

Section 12A

circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) has not provided reasonable opportunity of being heard as provided under Second Proviso to Section 12AB (1)(b)(ii)(B) of the Act. 3. On the facts and in circumstances ... facts and circumstances of the case, in order to prevent miscarriage of justice, we find it fit and proper to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee in support of its case for registration of the Trust u/s. 12AB of the Act. Therefore we dispose of this

Shree Shantinathji Derasar Ni Pedhi Limdi, Dahod vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 355/AHD/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri H.V. Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT D.R
Section 12A

circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) has not provided reasonable opportunity of being heard as provided under Second Proviso to Section 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) of the Act. 3. On the facts and in circumstances

Sundar Sankar Va Swadhya Mandal, Nashik vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

The appeal is ALLOWED FOR STATISTCIAL PURPOSE

ITA 1439/PUN/2023[--]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jan 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1439/Pun/2023 Sundar Sankar Va Swadhya Mandal, 22, Lokmanya Nagar, Gangapur Road, Nashik- 422002. Pan: Aaets1478G . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mrs. Deepa Khare [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ajay Kumar Kesari [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 12(1)(ac)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

respondent. This period of seven days allowed to appellant to comply in our considered opinion in not a reasonable period, because the opportunity of being heard should be real, reasonable and effective, the same should not be for namesake, it should not be a mere paper opportunity. This ... should be provided to the affected party according reasonable period to negate, otherwise, it would violate the principles of natural justice as the opportunity of being heard should be an effective opportunity and not an empty formality, as the denial of reasonable opportunity renders the action/order void. 7. Although

Amit Mondal, East Burdwan vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Burdwan.

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

ITA 1114/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

prayed that grounds raised in the instant appeal may be restored to the ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard. 4. Per contra, ld. DR opposed the request made by the ld. counsel for the assessee. Since the ld. CIT(A) issued several consecutive ... 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 3 AY: 2018-19 Amit Kumar Mondal necessary documents in support of its grounds of appeal

Kand K Computrades Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-9(4), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1111/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Computrades Private Limited 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 consecutive notices to the assessee ... 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

Umiya Agriculture, Rajasthan vs. ITO WD 7(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 664/JPR/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jan 2024AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ruchesh Sinha (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Dinesh Badgujar (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69

Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC here also. The ld. CIT(A) has given three opportunities of being heard to the assessee as detailed in below:- Date of compliance Status 26.07.2023 No compliance 21.08.2023 No compliance 30.08.2023 No compliance 7 Umiya Agriculture ... operation both partners being lady having aged and also have their own medical problem. Though, the ld. CIT(A) has granted 3 opportunities of being heard and ld. CIT(A) and not discussed merits of the case and the ld. AO without giving any deduction to the expenses incurred

DCIT, Central Circle Ajmer vs. Vijay Granimarmo Private Limited, Naya Ghar Gulab Bari Ajmer

In the result of the cross objection of the assessee in CO No

ITA 648/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H)
Section 143(3)

investment after taking into account such evidence as the taxpayer may produce and any other evidence in his possession gathered, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the taxpayer. The Valuation Officer may estimate the value of the asset, property or investment to the best of his judgment ... valuation reference is made. The Assessing Officer may, on receipt of the report from the Valuation Officer, and after giving the taxpayer an opportunity of being heard, take into account such report in making the assessment or re-assessment. 11 ITA Nos. 647 & 648/JP/2023 & CO Nos. 8 & 9/JP/2023 DCIT

DCIT, Central Circle Ajmer vs. Vijay Granimarmo Private Limited, Naya Ghar Gulab Bari Ajmer

In the result of the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 647/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jan 2024AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H)
Section 143(3)

investment after taking into account such evidence as the taxpayer may produce and any other evidence in his possession gathered, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the taxpayer. The Valuation Officer may estimate the value of the asset, property or investment to the best of his judgment ... valuation reference is made. The Assessing Officer may, on receipt of the report from the Valuation Officer, and after giving the taxpayer an opportunity of being heard, take into account such report in making the assessment or re-assessment. u ITA Nos. 647 & 648/IP/2023 & CO Nos. 8 & 9/3P/2023 DCIT

Play Games24X7 Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Mumbai

ITA 1631/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jeet KamdarFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani
Section 263

aforesaid order passed under section 263 of the Act and directed the learned PCIT to examine the issue afresh after giving a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the learned PCIT issued a notice directing the assessee to make its submission regarding

Universal Education Foundation, Mumbai vs. Asst DIT (E) II(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1097/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleuniversal Education Foundation V. Assistant Director Of Income-Tax (Exemption) – Ii(2) 1St Floor, Filka Building Mumbai Daftary Road, Malad (W) Mumbai - 400097 Pan: Aabcu0516D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 11(1)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 254(2)

exemption u/s 11 and not deny it. 3. Both the lower authorities erred in passing their respective orders without granting your appellant adequate opportunity of being heard. The order passed by them are in contravention of the principles of natural justice and hence, bad in law." 8. The relevant facts

Alstom Transport Sa, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation 1(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 921/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Arora, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Siddharth, CIT- DR
Section 234ASection 270A

merits of the issues arising in these appeals. Needless to mention, before deciding the issue, the assessee must be afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes. 5. Hence, in the absence of any material change on the facts of the issue, the matter is being

H.B Exports, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-34(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2765/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediah. B. Exports Vs. Acit Bn-96, West Shalimar Bagh, Circle – 34(1) New Delhi-110 008 New Delhi Pan No. Aaafh 4938 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Adv., Shri Madhur Aggarwal, Adv. & Shri Mahir Aggarwal, Adv. Revenue By Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.01.2024 Order Per Pradip Kumar Kedia, Am :

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 50C

Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in sustaining additions in the hands of assessee, without giving any 3 fair and proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Thereby, violating the principles of natural justice.” 3. When the matter was called for hearing, the learned Counsel

Surya Pratap Singh, Meerut vs. ITO Ward-2(5), Meerut

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

ITA 2064/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyasurya Pratap Singh, Vs. Ito, Ward 2 (5), Ka – 138, Galaxy Ganga, Meerut. Ganga Nagar, Meerut (Uttar Pradesh).

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 54Section 54F

separate issue of notice u/s 143(2) is necessary, when no any such notice was ever been served and no proper opportunity of being heard was allowed to present the case. 6. That the assessment order was served on line on 18.06.2021 along with notices ... cost of house and the exemption u/s 54F of the Act which is being claimed. Needless to add, assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of being heard. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 17th

Alstom Transport Sa, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle International Taxation-1(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2378/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Arora, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Siddharth, CIT- DR
Section 234ASection 270A

merits of the issues arising in these appeals. Needless to mention, before deciding the issue, the assessee must be afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes. 5. Hence, in the absence of any material change on the facts of the issue, the matter is being

Alstom Transport Sa, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle International Taxation-1(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2377/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Arora, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Siddharth, CIT- DR
Section 234ASection 270A

merits of the issues arising in these appeals. Needless to mention, before deciding the issue, the assessee must be afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes. 5. Hence, in the absence of any material change on the facts of the issue, the matter is being

Devendra Kumar, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward- 1, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 6833/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyadevender Kumar, Vs. Ito, Ward 1, C/O Anamika Memorial Shiksha Niketanm, Ghaziabad. H.No.36, Ganga Enclave, Loni Border, Ghaziabad.

For Appellant: Shri Umesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 54F

objection to this proposition. Accordingly, I remit this issue to the file of AO. Needless to add, assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of being heard. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 17th

DCIT, Circle, Najibabad vs. Parmarth Industries Pvt. Ltd., Bijnore

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

ITA 5529/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit Circle Vs. Parmarth Industries Pvt. Ltd., 10Th, Km Stone, Nagina Najibabad, Bijnor Uttar Pradesh Road, Bijnor, Bijnor Uttar Pradesh Pan No.Aadcp0551D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. V.K. Dubey, Sr. Dr Respondent By Sh. Mayank Patawari, Ca Sh. Anmol Jagga, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 15/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 15/01/2024

Section 147Section 68

crore. The AO is directed to examine the same and decide the issue afresh after affording a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 11. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose. 12. Decision announced in the open court

Venerable Advertising Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Kol-1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 459/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.459/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Venerable Advertising Pvt. Ltd....................…...……………....Appellant 6, Kali Krishna Tagore Street, Jorbagan, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aaacv8673M] Vs. Pcit, Kolkata-1, Kolkata…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Aayush Kedia, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. Datta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 30, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 14.03.2023 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pcit’] U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Action Of The Pr. Cit In Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act & Thereby Directing The Assessing Officer To Frame The Assessment Afresh. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Vide Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration I.E. A.Y 2018-19 Declared Total Income Of Rs.1,09,24,210/- Which Was Accepted By The Assessing Officer In The Assessment Carried Out U/S 143(3) Of The Act. However, Later On, The Ld. Pr. Cit In Exercising Of His Revision

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 94(7)

Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he, may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances

Bhiwadi Integrated Development Authority, Bhiwadi, Alwar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Jaipur

ITA 595/JPR/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jan 2024AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Lal Agarwal (C.A.)&For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT)
Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 9

considering that the profitability and applicability of proviso to Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That the proper opportunity of being heard was not provided in the case. 4. The assessee craves to add or alter any ground of appeal during the course of hearing ... empowered to pass an order in writing cancelling the registration of such trust or institution after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the trust or institution. 15. It is to be noticed that the registration of the trust or institution under Section 12A is condition precedent for claiming

Madhu Goyal, Kota vs. ITO Ward, Kota

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

ITA 575/JPR/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jan 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: the date of hearing. 3

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 37(1)

facts of the case in passing the Exparty order and confirming the order of the Id. AO without providing adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard and not considering the material on record in the gross breach of natural justice. Hence the same entire addition may kindly be deleted ... 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. AO in the interest of equity and justice