← 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

Varsha Viswanath Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1906/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

been shown in the registered sale deed. Learned Assessing Officer shall decide the issue as per fact and law, after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. The ground raised by the assessee is accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Royal Fortune Business Consultants India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 959/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.959/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Royal Fortune Business Consultants India Pvt. Ltd. ........................……Appellant Flat No.2C, S.P. Block, 1St Floor, Raja Subodh Chandra Mullick Road, Kolkata- 700092. [Pan: Aadcr9408F] Vs. Ito, Ward-10(4), Kolkata......................…................…........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri B. K. Singh, Jcit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 04, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 09, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.07.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. No One Has Put In Appearance On The Behalf Of The Assessee Despite Notice. However, On Earlier Date Also I.E. 08.11.2023, The Notice Was Issued To The Assessee But No One Has Put In Appearance & The Case Was Adjourned For Today. It Seems That The Assessee Is Not Interested In Pursuing Its Appeal, Therefore, We Proceed To Adjudicate This Appeal After Hearing The Ld. Dr & After Going Through The Records.

Section 147Section 151Section 250

granted mechanically. 4. For that the Ld. AO erred in passing the assessment order ex- parte without providing the assessee any effective opportunity of being heard. 5. For that Ld. CIT(A) also erred in passing the appellate order ex- parte without providing the appellant any appellant any effective opportunity

Sri. Hanumantappa Giriyapur Manjunatha, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 967/BANG/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2019-20 Shri Hanumantappa Giriyapur Manjunatha, The Income Tax 415, Brocade Vista Apartment, Officer, Bangalore South, Ward – 5(3)(3), Karnataka – 560 098. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aulpm4215E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vignesh, CA
Section 143(1)Section 90

appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), remit the issue to the file of Ld.CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue afresh upon giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and upon considering the relevant evidence on record or which the assessee may choose to file at the time of hearing

3Embed Software Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 654/BANG/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. 3Embed Software Technologies Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant # 54, Rbi Colony, Director Of 1St Main, 10Th Cross, Income Tax, Anandnagar, Hebbal, Cpc, Vs. Bangalore – 560 024. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacz5686L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Nischal, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 154

ends of justice, we remit the issue to the file of Ld.CIT(A) to adjudicate the same on merits 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 at the time

Partap Singh, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1) Faridabad, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3442/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh**

For Appellant: Shri Shantanu Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Kirti Sankrtyayan, Sr. DR
Section 144

That under the fact & circumstance, Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in not quashing the Asstt. Order since reasonable opportunity of being heard not provided by Ld. A.O. and passed ex-parte Asstt. order. - 3. That under the fact & circumstance, Ld. A.O. as well as Ld. CIT(A) erred

America Express Services India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3525/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

Additional Director of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing Office - 1 (1) under Section 92CA(1) of the Act and in not providing an opportunity of being heard before referring the transfer pricing issues to the Learned TPO. Corporate tax grounds of appeal Disregard of acquisition cost of business database 4.1 That ... will be appropriate that these issues are also remitted to AO/TPO. The AO/TPO shall consider the issues afresh after giving assessee proper opportunity of being heard. 10. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this

M/S. American Express Services India Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3447/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

Additional Director of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing Office - 1 (1) under Section 92CA(1) of the Act and in not providing an opportunity of being heard before referring the transfer pricing issues to the Learned TPO. Corporate tax grounds of appeal Disregard of acquisition cost of business database 4.1 That ... will be appropriate that these issues are also remitted to AO/TPO. The AO/TPO shall consider the issues afresh after giving assessee proper opportunity of being heard. 10. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this

Twinings (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-4(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 391/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata08 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(v)Section 37(1)

Commissioner]] shall neither refuse nor withdraw approval to any gratuity fund unless he has given the trustees of that fund a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. Conditions for approval. 3.In order that a gratuity fund may receive and retain approval, it shall satisfy the conditions

M/S Arham Packaging Goods Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-10(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 130/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg (Judicial Member), Shri Girish Agrawal (Accountant Member)

Section 131Section 250Section 68

facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeal)-15 erred in violating the principles of natural justice and opportunity of being heard by not considering the appearance/adjournment request of the appellant. As such, the order passed u/s 250 is void ab-initio. The action

Yashodha, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 920/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Yashodha, No. 10 & 11, Katha No. 58, The Income Tax E Patel Narayanaswamy Officer, Layout, Ward – 4(3)(5), Chunchanghatta Main Road, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 062. Pan: Akmpy1765G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT (DR)
Section 144

valid one as the same dehors the principle of natural justice. The assessee has never been given a proper Page 3 opportunity of being heard as the notices issued to the assessee is found to be through incorrect email ID; not the ID mentioned in Form No. 35 filed ... find it fit and proper to set aside the issue to the file of Ld.AO for proper adjudication of the same upon giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee and taking into consideration the evidence the assessee may choose to file at the time of hearing of the matter

Basavaraj Laxmanagouda Biradar, Vijayapura vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Vijayapura

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 873/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Shridhar Hegde, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., D.R
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

circumstances of the case and in law by confirming the impugned Penalty Order though the learned AO had not given enough opportunity of being heard to the Appellant.” 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law by confirming the impugned

Landcraft Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 27, New Delhi

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

ITA 1062/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2024AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 69A

should not be made under section 271 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. If you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity of being heard in person or through authorised representative you may show cause in writing on or before the said date which will be considered before

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Ltu, New Delhi

In the result, the both appeals of the Assessee in ITA

ITA 5612/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Delhi08 Jan 2024AY 2015-16
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 112Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 32

direct the AO to re-compute the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act by giving reasons for making adjustment and giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the ground No.5 of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 12. Ground No.6 being general in nature

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Ltu, New Delhi

In the result, the both appeals of the Assessee in ITA

ITA 5611/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Delhi08 Jan 2024AY 2014-15
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 112Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 32

direct the AO to re-compute the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act by giving reasons for making adjustment and giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the ground No.5 of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 12. Ground No.6 being general in nature

Shivazza Tiles Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1)(1), Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 700/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ld. Cit(A). 4. The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Is Bad In Law & Is Contrary To The Provisions Of Law & Facts. It Is Submitted That The Same Be Held Now. ”

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Director, appellant company was prevented to make timely compliance in response to opportunity granted by Ld. CIT(A). It is therefore prayed that opportunity of being heard be provided to appellant company to present the facts before Ld. CIT(A). 4. The order passed

T B Lulla Charitable Foundation, Sangli vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 1220/PUN/2023[--]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1220/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :- T B Lulla Charitable The Cit Exemption, Foundation, V Pune. Atit Bungalow South Shivaji S Nagar, Behind Mali Chitr Mandir, Sangli - 416416. Pan: Aaect9113E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare – Ar Revenue By Shri Rakesh Jha – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 05/01/2024

Section 10Section 11Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

case referred to in sub-clause (B) of clause (iv) of the first proviso, rejecting such application, after affording it a reasonable opportunity of being heard;] (iii) ……. 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption),Pune in the case of the Assessee held that the Activities of the Assessee had commenced

Shri Kailash Math Trust, Nashik vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 1177/PUN/2023[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1177/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : N.A. Shri Kailash Math Trust, The Cit(Exemption), Bhaktidhan, Panchavati Peth V Pune. Road, Nashik – 422003. S Pan: Aabas0761Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel – Dr(Cit) Date Of Hearing 01/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 05/01/2024

Section 10Section 11Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(vi)

case referred to in sub-clause (B) of clause (iv) of the first proviso, rejecting such application, after affording it a reasonable opportunity of being heard;] (iii) ……. 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption),Pune in the case of the Assessee held that the Activities of the Assessee had commenced

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Ms Agarwal Foundries Private Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 1063/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Dy.Cit Vs. M/S. M.S Agarwal Circle 16(2) Foundries (P) Ltd, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaics4832K (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Shri K. Madhusudan, Cit(Dr) Assessee By: Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, Ca Date Of Hearing: 04/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05/01/2024 Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.03.2017 Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2012-13. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Company Is Engaged In Manufacture Of Sponge Iron. It Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y 2012-13 Admitting Income Of Rs.5,730/- & Also Revised Return Of Income Admitting Income Of Rs.9,760/-. Subsequently, The Case Was Converted Into Scrutiny Under Cass & Statutory Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Were Issued & Served On The Assessee To Which Page 1 Of 10

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)

file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Needless to say, the Assessing Officer shall decide the issue after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 12. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court

Smita Biswas, Jalpaiguri vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-1(1), Jalpaiguri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 464/KOL/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 127(1)Section 143(2)

transfer cases (1) The [Principal Director General or] Director General or [Principal Chief 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

Lilasons Breweries Ltd., Bhopal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 1 (1), Bhopal

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

ITA 133/IND/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore05 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

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

Section 147Section 153Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal without affording proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming