“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

Shri Chetas Karamshi Nandu, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward-22(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1588/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ajeya Kumar Ojha, D.R

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

never received by the assessee, the benefit of doubt is required to be given to the assessee at least to provide adequate opportunity of being heard before disposing of his appeal. 8. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the impugned order passed ... back of the assessee without providing adequate opportunity of being heard is 5 Shri Chetas Karamshi Nandu not sustainable in the eyes of law, hence set aside to be decided afresh by providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 9. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bhamashah Sundarlal Daga Charitable Trust, Bikaner vs. CIT - Exemption, Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 278/JODH/2023[2022-23 to 2026-27]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Nov 2023

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.278/Jodh/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : N.A. Bhamashah Sundarlal Daga The Commissioner Of Charitable Trust, V Income Tax-Exemption, Bagree Mohallan, S Jaipur. Bikaner – 334001. Pan: Aaetb1013C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee By Shri Suresh Ojha – Ar Revenue By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 14/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10/11/2023

Section 12Section 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), Jaipur in the case of the Assessee held that the Activities of the Assessee had commenced

Shri Jai Bhagwan, Mansa vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bathinda

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

ITA 271/ASR/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar10 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Ratinder Kaur, Sr. DR

adverse decision against him. The ld. counsel prayed that the matter may be remanded back to the ld. CIT(A) to grant fresh opportunity of being heard and decide the appeal on merits of the case. 3. Per contra, the ld. DR has no objection to the request ... mentioned the fact of services of the notice of hearing upon the assessee. Thus, in our view, the assessee has been denied the opportunity of being heard, in violation of the principles of natural justice. We, therefore, consider it deem fit to remand back the matter

Chief Manger, Canra Bank ( Person Responsible), Jammu vs. Income Tax Officer ( TDS ) Circle, Jammu

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

ITA 187/ASR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Vinamar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ravinder Mittal, Sr. DR

merits. 3. The counsel for the assessee submitted that the order of ld. CIT(A) was passed ex-parte depriving the appellant opportunity of being heard without appreciating the merits of the case. Accordingly, he requested that the matter may be sent back to the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate ... issues on merits after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee with due service of notices, show cause notice before passing the appellate order. He undertakes to co-operate in the fresh appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. DR has no objection to the request

Raj Kumar Wadhwa, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 61(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 2614/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Delhi10 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharatraj Kumar Wadhwa Vs. Ito H. No.90/38, 2Nd Floor Ward – 61(2) Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-17 New Delhi Pan No. Aabpw 0596 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By -None- Revenue By -None- Date Of Hearing: 09.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.11.2023

Section 271BSection 44A

file of learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) is directed to consider the issue afresh after giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard. Raj Kumar Wadhwa vs. ITO 3 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

Pranay Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 58(6), New Delhi

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

ITA 2592/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 69A

restore the matter to the file of learned CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh, of course, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We order accordingly. 5. In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes only. Order pronounced in open court on 10th

Rahul Rai, Panipat vs. ITO Ward -5, Panipat

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

ITA 2700/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 263

issue to the files of the AO and the AO is directed to decide the issue afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and keeping in mind the additions confirmed by us in this order which may be a valid source

Van Ooord India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 5(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1686/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Van Oord India Pvt Ltd Acit Circle 5(3)(2) 201, 2Nd Floor, Central Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Vs. Plaza, 166 Cst Road, Mumbai- 400020 Kalina, Mumbai- 400098

For Appellant: Shri. Divesh ChawlaFor Respondent: Shri. Ajay Kumar Sharma & Anil Sant

Section 250

erred in pas 1. erred in passing the impugned order without giving adequate sing the impugned order without giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the Appellant opportunity of being heard to the Appellant 2. erred in rejecting the additional objections raised by the 2. erred in rejecting the additional

Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG (1), Mumbai

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 4248/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10(15)Section 115JSection 234BSection 41(4)Section 88ESection 90

regard vide letter dated 26/11/2010 and allow the claim in accordance with law. Needless to say that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is ordered accordingly. SHORT GRANT OF RELIEF UNDER SECTION 90. 33. Through ground No.8, the assessee is contending the issue of short ... above, we restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for considering afresh with similar direction and only after reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Ground no.4, raised by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.” 63. Respectfully following the above decision of the Tribunal

DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 4158/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10(15)Section 115JSection 234BSection 41(4)Section 88ESection 90

Shri Ramesh Chander Gupta, Doda vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Udhampur

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

ITA 268/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.268/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 144Section 250Section 250oSection 28Section 44ASection 69A

passing the order Under section 250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 merely on assumptions, presumptions and apprehensions, without affording the adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred both in law as well as on facts by dismissing

Shri Saroop Hari, Hoshiarpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 4, Hoshiarpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing no

ITA 10/ASR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69Section 69A

remitted back to the file of the ld. AO. Needless to say, that the ld. AO shall provide proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee in set aside proceedings. The evidence/explanation submitted by assessee in its defence shall be admitted by the ld. AO and adjudicated

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar vs. Sh. Jaimal Singh, L/H. Sh. Prem Chand, Tarn Taran

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

ITA 82/ASR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Nov 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139(9)Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 263

I.T.A. No. 82/Asr/2016 3 & C.O. 11/Asr/2016 4,29,431) by admitting additional evidence without giving a specific opportunity of being heard to the A O. to rebut the same, which is in contravention of Rule 46A(3). iv) On the facts and in the circumstancesofthe case, the Ld.CIT

Subodh Kumar Choudhary, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 32(3), Delhi

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

ITA 361/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Hon’Ble Vice-A N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Rohatgi

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

Tribunal in the case of Kanoi Paper & Industries Ltd. Vs. ACIT (supra). Needless to say that the Assessing Officer shall provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee is at liberty to provide all the necessary information in support of its contention. 7. In the result

Prayas Juvenile Aid Centre, New Delhi vs. CIT (Exemption), New Delhi

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

ITA 1595/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17 Prayas Juvenile Aid Centre Cit(Exemption) 59, Tuglakabad Institution New Delhi Area, New Delhi Vs. Pan No.Adspj0736H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Gaurav Kalra, Ca Respondent By Sh. P.N. Barnwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 09/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 09/11/2023 Order Per N. K. Billaiya, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Preferred Against The Order Of The Cit(Exemption), Delhi Dated 31-03-2023 Pertaining To A.Y.2016-17. 2. The Grievance Of The Assessee Read As Under :- 1. The Learned Ctt (Exemption) Passed The Order Under 15Th Proviso To Section 1023Ck) Nor Cancellation Of Registration Us 1023Cxis) Of The Income Tax Act Without Considering The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Being Heard Which Is Against The Natural Justice. 2. The Learned Ctt (Exemption) Also Erred In Cancelling The Exemption Us 1023Chny Of The Income Tax Act With Retrospective Effect From Ay 2016-17. 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Alter Or Forgo Any Grounds Of Appeal Either Before Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.

Section 10Section 102

cancellation of registration us 1023Cxis) of The Income Tax Act without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without giving any opportunity of being heard which is against the natural justice. 2. The learned CTT (Exemption) also erred in cancelling the exemption us 1023CHNY of The Income ... files of the CIT(E). The CIT(E) is directed to decide the issue of registration afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee is directed to attend the proceedings and furnish all the necessary details in support of its claim

Continental Construction Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3662/DEL/2017[1983-84]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2023AY 1983-84

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 1983-84 Continental Constructions Acit Ltd., 28, Nehru Place Circle – 4 (2) New Delhi-110019 Vs. New Delhi Pan No.Aaacc2309R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. M.P. Rastogi, Advocate Respondent By Sh. T. James Singson, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 09/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 09/11/2023 Order Per N. K. Billaiya, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Preferred Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-2, New Delhi Dated 28-02-2017 Pertaining To A.Y.1983- 84. 2. The Grievance Of The Assessee Read As Under :- 1. On Facts & Circumstances & In Law, Learned Assessing Officer & Cit(A) Have Erred & Were Not Justified In Charging Of Interest U/S 220(2) In Respect Of The Impugned Amount Of Rs 14,15,99,180/- (Which Was Determined By Order U/S 220(7) Dated 05/01/2001) For Any Period Prior To The Date Of Revocation Of The Said Order U/S 220(7) I.E 12/06/2007. 2. Learned Assessing Officer Has Failed To Appreciate The Law That Interest U/S 220(2) Is Chargeable Only When There Is An Un-Discharged Demand Notice, Which In The Case Of Appellant Could Be Said To Have Arisen Only On 12/06/2007, Consequent To The Order Of Revocation & Thus Interest Should Have Been Chargeable Only On Default Of Payment Of Demand Stated In The Notice U/S 156 Dated 12/06/2007. 3. On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Learned Assessing Officer & Cit(A) Have Failed To Correctly Appreciate The Ratio Of The Judgement Of The Apex Court In The Case Of Vikrant Tyres Ltd Reported In 247 Itr 821 (Sc)

Section 154Section 156Section 220Section 220(2)Section 220(7)

computation sheet of charging of interest u/s. 220 (2) of the Act and decide the issue after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 14. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)), Bhilai vs. Shri Sanjay Jain, Bhilai

In the result ground no. 06 of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 55/RPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No: Ita 55/Rpr/2020 (Assessment Years:2014-15) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, V Shri Sanjay Jain, Bhilai S C/O M/S Sidhharth Industries, Plot No. 38, Industrial Estate, Bhilai, C.G. Pan: Aet Pj1859D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) . (""यथ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ravi Agarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 23-08-2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 09-11-2023 Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 68

remit the issue back to the files of Ld. CIT(A) to re-adjudicate the issue afresh. Assessee shall be provided with adequate opportunity of being heard. In the result ground no. 2 of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 7. Ground NO. 3: Addition on account

M/S. S.R. Ferro Alloys, Jhabua vs. The PCIT, Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 148/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanis.R. Ferro Alloys Pr. Cit, Central 9, Siddheswar Colony Bhopal Vs. Jhabua (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Abhfs7377Q Appellant By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.11.2023

Section 263

involved. In view of the aforesaid, proceedings u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were initiated. Accordingly, the assessee was given an opportunity of being heard vide this office letter bearing DIN ITBA/COME/17/2020-21/1031564309(1) dated 17/03/2021 sent via speed post and sent on registered e-mail.” 8.1 Thus ... section 263 of the Act 1961. Therefore, by invocation of Explanation in the order without confronting the assessee and giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee is not appropriate and sustainable in law. 6 Thus, the Tribunal has considered in detail the aspect of revisional power

Rohit Saxena, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer 4(5), Jaipur

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

ITA 566/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A). Based On This Prayer The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Sinha (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)

Section 144Section 148

therefore, we admit this appeal. 5. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. Ground for appeal is that not giving opportunity of being heard gave by CIT appeal, no physical copy to us and intimation on old email id not which is mentioned on form ... with the ld. CIT(A) the present appeal is filed with sole ground on the fact that the assessee was not provided sufficient opportunity of being heard the notices were not sent on the email id shown in the form no. 35. 9. Per contra, the ld. DR objected

Narender Singh Shekhawat, B-120, Acharya Vinoba Bhave Nagar, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Jaipur

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

ITA 451/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sumer Singh ShekhawatFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

dismissed. 5.0 In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.” 5. As the appeal of the assessee was dismissed without the opportunity of being heard to the assessee the assessee has challenged the order of the ld. CIT(A) on the grounds as reiterated here in above ... rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. The bench noted that the appeal of the assessee dismissed without affording the opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Before us the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee has opted for Vivad Se Viswas scheme 2020, having