“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

Sumit Sinha, Thane vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2578/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm)

Section 139(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 90

assessee on the basis of documents furnished by the assessee and in accordance with the law. The assessee should be provided with adequate opportunity of being heard. 4 Sumit Sinha 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

Dynamix India Drill Con Co., New Delhi vs. The Assessing Officer Circle 62(1) Income Tax Civic Center Minto Road, Delhi

ITA 1771/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dynamix India Drill Con. Co. Assessing Officer G-4, 208/209, Sector- 16, Circle – 62 (1) Rohini, New Delhi Vs. Income Tax Civic Centre, Pan No.Aadf05426B Minto Road, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. Sh. Vivek Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 02/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 02/11/2023 Order Per N. K. Billaiya, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Preferred Against The Order Dated 26.07.2022 By Nfac, Delhi Pertaining To A.Y. 2018-19. 2. The Grievance Of The Assessee Read As Under :- 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Not Condoning The Delay In Filing Of Appeal Disregarding The Extension Order Granted By The Hon'Ble Courts For Extension Of The Time Limit As Well As Inhumanly Turning A Blind Eye Towards The Genuine Medical Grounds Of The Ca/Ar Of The Appellant.

Section 36(1)(va)

directed to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits of the case after affording a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. Order pronounced in the open court in the presence of both the parties on 02.11.2023. (ASTHA CHANDRA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *NEHA* Date

Hitesh Golchha, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed, in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 104/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.101, 102, 103 & 104/Rpr/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) V. Hitesh Golchha Acit, Prop. Of Mouli Investment, Central Circle-1 Jeevan Ganga, Near Dani Bada, Raipur Budha Para, Raipur – 492 001 Chhattisgarh [Pan: Agjpg 7698 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B. Subramanyam, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri S. K. Meena, Cit-D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.11.2023

For Appellant: Shri B. Subramanyam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Meena, CIT-D.R

Section 153ASection 263Section 43C

dated 13.08.2021 (refer page no.16 to 20 of paper book) with a direction for making a fresh assessment after providing and giving fair opportunities of being heard to the appellant. In this case an information were provided to the Investigating Wing, Raipur by the Police authority on 20.07.2016 that they ... Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India" wherein it was held that if the order is passed by the authority without providing the reasonable opportunity of being heard to the person affected by it adversely will be invalid, the question of remanding the case to the file of Ld. PCIT

Hitesh Golchha, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed, in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 103/RPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri B. Subramanyam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Meena, CIT-D.R

Section 153ASection 263Section 43C

Hitesh Golchha, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed, in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 102/RPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri B. Subramanyam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Meena, CIT-D.R

Section 153ASection 263Section 43C

Hitesh Golchha, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Raipur

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed, in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 101/RPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri B. Subramanyam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Meena, CIT-D.R

Section 153ASection 263Section 43C

Prakash Davara, Raipur vs. Assistant Coimmissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 177/RPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 177/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Prakash Davara, 08, Gitanjali Nagar, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Acupd0169K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-4(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain, CAFor Respondent: S/shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR &

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 156Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

vide his order passed u/s. 263 of the Act directed the A.O to pass a fresh assessment order after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thereafter, the A.O vide his order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act, dated 22.12.2016 giving effect ... basis of a speaking order. Needless to say, the CIT(Appeals) shall in the course of set-aside proceedings afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee who shall remain at a liberty to substantiate his claim based on the contentions which have been raised before us. Thus

Shri Gopal Goshala Seva Sansthan, Jhalawar vs. CIT(E) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee inITA

ITA 468/JPR/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Nov 2023AY 2023-24

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

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

grounds: - “1. The Impugned order u/s 12AB of the Act dated 07.06.2023 is bad in law and on facts, without providing adequate & reasonable opportunity of being heard, being without jurisdiction and for various other reasons and hence the same may kindly be quashed. Shri Gopal Goshala Seva Sansthan ... Impugned order u/s 80G(5) of the Act dated 07.06.2023 is bad in law and on facts, without providing adequate & reasonable opportunity of being heard, being without jurisdiction and for various other reasons and hence the same may kindly be quashed. 2. The Ld. CIT(E) erred

Shri Gopal Goshala Seva Sansthan, Jhalawar vs. CIT(E), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee inITA

ITA 467/JPR/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Nov 2023AY 2023-24

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

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

Mandir Shree Bhairav Ji Trust, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

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

ITA 427/JPR/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Nov 2023

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vikash Rajvanshi (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

decide the case of the assessee after giving proper 14 Mandir Shree Bhairav Ji Trust vs. CIT Exemption 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. CIT(E) and should

Wise Human Being Foundation, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 60(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2014/DEL/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Nov 2023AY 2022-23

Bench: Filing The Return Of Income.

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Pratal Mall, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek K. Upadhayay, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(1)

Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has grossly erred both in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal of the appellant without granting any opportunity of being heard to the appellant, and hence the order passed in violation of principles of natural justice is unsustainable in law. 2. That learned NFAC ... remanded to the file of ld. CIT (A) to consider the issue afresh after giving the assessee proper 3 ITA No.2014/Del./2023 opportunity of being heard. Ld. DR for the Revenue fairly agreed to the above proposition. Accordingly, I remit the issue to the file

M/S. Riya Real Estates Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Raipur

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

ITA 108/RPR/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur01 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss) A No. 01/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Riya Real Estates Private Limited 308, 3Rd Floor, Ceejay House, Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Mumbai (Mh)-400 018 Pan : Aadcr8769B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-Ii, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 153DSection 250Section 56(2)(viia)

Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 1 Raipur ("the Ld. CIT(A)") is highly unjustified, bad in law, without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard, against the principles of natural justice and not in accordance with the provisions of law. It is prayed that the Appellate Order passed under section ... impugned appeal in the case of appellant was disposed off within a very short span of time (about 2 months) without providing adequate opportunity of being heard & denuding the right of effective representation. That the ex-parte Appellate Order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) u/s.250 is highly illegal

Kaviish Focus Pipes Pvt. Ltd, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-1(1)(3), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 9/SRT/2020[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Surat01 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.48 & 09/Srt/2020 (Ays 2012-13 & 2013-14) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Kaviish Focus Pipes Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer (Now Known As Gspl Seamless Ward-1(1)(3), Surat, 1St Floor, Vs Pipes Pvt. Ltd.) Survey No.389 Room No.113, Aaykar Bhawan, Orma, Taluika Olpad, Surat-394 Majura Gate, Surat-395001 540 [Pan Aaeck 0608 B] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 254(1)Section 68

Assessing Officer is directed to consider all such plea and pass the order on merit in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, assessee

Kavish Focus Pipes Pvt Ltd (Now Known As Gspl Seamless Pipes Pvt. Ltd), Surat vs. ITO, Ward-1(1)(3), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 48/SRT/2020[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Surat01 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 254(1)Section 68

Sri Bibekananda Sahu, L/H. of Late Sahadeb Sahu, Ganjam vs. ITO, Ward-2, Berhampur

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

ITA 284/CTK/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.284/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Sahadeb Sahu (Deceased) Vs Ito, Ward-2, Berhampur Represented By The Legal Heir Sri Bibekananda Sahu, At:Banadevipatna, Po:Kabisurya Nagar Dist : Ganjam-761104 Pan No. :Bmzps 2543 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 31/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 03.08.2023, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1054834789(1) For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. It Was The Submission Of The Ld. Ar That The Ld. Cit(A) Without Giving Sufficient Opportunity Being Heard To The Assessee, Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Ex-Parte. It Was Also The Submission That The Ld. Ao Has Also Estimated The Profit Rejecting The Book Result Of The Assessee Without Examining The Material Available Before Him. It Was The Submission The Issues In This Appeal May Be Restored To The File Of Ld. Cit(A) For Fresh Adjudication & The Assessee May Be Given One More Opportunity To Provide The Materials Before The Ld. Cit(A) To Substantiate Its Claim.

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR

natural justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to produce all the material evidences in respect of his claim before

Network Electrodevices Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward-5(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2566/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Mandar Vaidya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)

deem it fit to remit the issue back to the Ld. CIT(A) for consideration of the issue afresh after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is ordered accordingly. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court

Vikrant Kiritkumar Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(3)(7), Earnest House Nariman Point

ITA 2421/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Narang, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Singh, D.R

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 68

stop the multiplicity of the proceedings the issue is required to be decided by the first appellate authority on merits after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In these circumstances 4 Shri Vikrant K Jain the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable ... eyes of law, hence set aside to be decided afresh after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 31.10.2023. (AMARJIT SINGH) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai

M/S Gem Construction, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 22(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 2217/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm)

Section 143(3)

order passed by the learned CIT(A) and restore all the issues to his file for adjudicating them on merits, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also direct the assessee to be vigilant and fully cooperate with the learned CIT(A) for expeditious disposal

L & T Technology Services Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2542/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blel & T Technology Services Limited V. Acit – Circle – 2(2)(1) L & T House, N.M. Marg Room No. 545, 5Th Floor Mumbai - 400001 Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaccl4310P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Nitesh Joshi Department Represented By : Shri Manoj Kumar

Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 69CSection 90

shall cooperate with the proceedings before the Assessing Officer without taking unnecessary adjournments. Needless to say that the Assessing Officer shall provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, Ground No.4 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Page No. 18 L & T Technology Services Limited ... shall cooperate with the proceedings before the Assessing Officer without taking unnecessary adjournments. Needless to say that the Assessing Officer shall provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, Ground No. 6 is allowed for statistical purpose. 33. With regard to Ground No. 7 and 8 relating

Nokia of America Corporation (As Sucessor of Alcatel Usa Sourcing Lp, Haryana vs. JCIT (OSD) International Tax- 1(1) (1), Mumbai

Appeal are disposed off as being infructuous

ITA 2104/MUM/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234A

with the direction to decide the same afresh in accordance with law after considering the submissions of the Appellant and after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. 4.4. The above order of the Tribunal was received by the DRP on (Assessment Years