“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

M/S. Sabari Developers, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(1), Mumbai

ITA 5388/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Satish Kumar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ajay Singh, D.R

Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 151

Without disposing off the objections raised by the assessee by a speaking order before completing the assessment and without giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. Thus, the impugned notice issued u/s 148 of the Act should be declared as illegal and the consequent assessment order

M/S Sanofi India Ltd (Formerly Known As Aventis Pharma Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT RG 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1606/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 271(1)(c)

directions of the Tribunal in those assessment years. Accordingly, we set aside the issue to the assessing officer for deciding afresh after due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Ground 7(c) is allowed for statistical purposes.” 66. Respectfully following the above decision and following the principle of consistency

ACIT- 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Mm/S Sanofi India Limited (Formerly Known As Aventis Pharma Ltd)., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1302/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 271(1)(c)

Shri Om Parkash ( HUF), Nawanshahr vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Nawanshahr

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

ITA 257/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Sh. Ravinder Mittal, Sr. DR

finding of the Assessing Officer in violation of 2 Om Parkash HUF v. ITO principles of natural justice without being granted adequate opportunity of being heard. 2. None appeared for the assessee, however a written submission was filed. Considering the written submission and after hearing the ld. DR the appeal ... Court of India in the case of Tin Box Company vs. CIT reported in 249 ITR 216 in has observed as under: “Assessment - Opportunity of being heard - Setting aside of assessment - Assessment order must be made after the assessee has been given reasonable opportunity of setting out his case - Same

The Designers, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4, Jalandhar

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

ITA 254/ASR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. Abhinav Vijh, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ravinder Mittal, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 37

respect of payment of contribution of Provident fund being claimed within due date by the appellant. The AO is directed to grant adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and allow credit of the said expenditure so claimed, if he finds it as per law. 5. The second issue

Shri Mohammad Yaqoob Banday, Budgam vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Srinagar

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

ITA 212/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Bashir Ahmad Lone, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ravinder Mittal, Sr. DR

Section 144

passed the order ex-parte qua the assessee and thus, the assessee has been denied the opportunity of being heard in violation of principles of natural justice. He pleaded that the appellant may be granted an adequate opportunity of being heard before the AO to present its case in view ... interest of justice, the matter may be remanded back to the AO to pass denovo assessment order after granting adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard to present its case before the Assessing Officer. In support, he placed the reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court

Qamar Afzal Talat, Dubai vs. ITO Ward 28(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 926/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Ms. Shivangi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271F

restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for decision afresh in accordance with law after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. We order accordingly. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced

Grohe India Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, (OSD), Delhi

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

ITA 113/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Advocate

Section 143(3)

return under section 143(3) and also challenged the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals) in passing the impugned order without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submits that the ld. CIT (Appeals)/NFAC disposed ... appeal should be restored to the file of the ld. CIT (Appeals)/NFAC for deciding afresh in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus this appeal is restored to the file of the ld. CIT (Appeals)/NFAC to decide afresh in accordance with

Groz Engineering Tools Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-10(2), Delhi

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

ITA 2868/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Ms. Akansha Birla, C. A

contentions of the assessee with reference to the evidences and allow the claims of the assessee in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court

DCIT, Central Circle- 28, New Delhi vs. Pam Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 1594/DEL/2021[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Nirbhay Mehta, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 68

justice were not complied with, the Tribunal restored the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. While completing the assessment in pursuance to the directions of the Tribunal, the Assessing Officer again repeated the addition

Ved Prakash Thru Legal Heir Narender, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 138/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M.Balaganesh[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Ved Prakash Thru Legal Heir Vs Ito, Narender, H.No.170, Dundahera, Ward-4(4), Behind Badi Chaupal, Gurgaon. Gurgaon-122016. Pan-Akvpp7366D Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.10.2023

Section 144Section 147Section 54B

case of the assessee was re-opened u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). Thereafter, AO after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee, passed the impugned assessment order u/s 144/147 of the Act dated 27.03.2015 wherein he made addition

Maga Sai Ramalingavara Prasad Govada, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-(1), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 210/VIZ/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.209/Viz/2023 & 210/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Maga Sai Ramalingavara Prasad Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Govada Income Tax [Rep.By Legal Heir Son Circle-1(1) Mr.G.Balakrishna] Visakhapatnam D.No.31-35-41, Vivekananda Colony Assam Gardens Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aappg5719B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.Bala Krishna, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Madhukar Aves, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing 11.10.2023 : घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee’S Legal Heir, His Son, Shri G.Balakrishna Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], Delhi Dated 31.05.2023. Since, The Grounds Raised In The Appeals Are Identical In Nature, These Appeals Are Clubbed, Heard Together & A Common Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience As Under. Facts Are Extracted From I.T.A.No.209/Viz/2023. 2

For Appellant: Shri G.Bala Krishna, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Aves, DR

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 148Section 250

unjust, arbitrary and deserves to be quashed. 3. That action of the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) in not providing the proper opportunity of being heard and dismissing the appeal is against the cardinal principle of natural justice and accordingly order deserves o be quashed. 4. The action ... principles of natural justice, we are inclined to remit the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to afford one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee to substantiate his claim with proper evidences and pass order accordingly. The assessee is also directed to adhere

Maga Sai Ramalingavara Prasad Govada, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 209/VIZ/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri G.Bala Krishna, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Aves, DR

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 148Section 250

Kesari Bai Katiya, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-3(4), Raipur

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

ITA 304/RPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 304/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Kesari Bai Katiya 6/663, Karma Chowk, Ram Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Asbpg3620R

For Appellant: Shri Bikram Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 144Section 148Section 154

appeal after considering the same. Needless to say, the CIT(Appeals) in the course of the set-aside proceedings shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 11. As the Ld. AR had not come forth with any contentions as regards the sustainability of the balance addition

Cabot Technology Solution Private Limited, Kochi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi-1, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is disposed of on the afore-stated terms

ITA 609/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Oct 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dascabot Technology Solutions Principal Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax – 1 204, 2Nd Floor, Lulu Cyber Tower Vs. Cr Building , Is Press Infopark, Kochi 682042 Road, Kochi 682018 [Pan:Aadcc 9320K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Allen Joseph, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sajit Kumar Das, Cit- D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Agitating The Revision Of It’S Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 20.12.2019 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Act (Pr. Cit), Vide His Order Dated 18.01.2022. 2.1 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Company In Software Development Business, Returned, For The Relevant Year, An Income Of Rs.3,67,574 Under The Regular Provisions Of The Act & A Book-Profit Of Rs.14,33,474 U/S.115Jb Of The Act, Paying The Higher Tax On The Latter. The Same Was Subject To Regular Assessment, Determining The Income Under The Regular Provisions At Rs. 8,10,750 & At The Returned Book-Profit Under Mat Provisions. The Assessment Record Was Subsequently Examined By The Learned Pr. Cit In Exercise Of His Revisionary

For Appellant: Shri Allen Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sajit Kumar Das, CIT- D.R

Section 10ASection 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

also set off the brought forward business loss/depreciation in conformity with the record. Needless to add, his adjudication/s shall be upon allowing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee, considering it’s representation/s. We decide accordingly. 5. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is disposed

Premilaba Ramde vs. Inh Jadeja, Rajkotvs.the ITO, Ward-2 (1) (1), Rajkot

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 34/RJT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

well as on facts in passing the appellate order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 in without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant inspite of knowing the fact that the appellant has furnished submission on quantum matter under bonafide belief that the appeal was fixed

Shri Vishal Rameshchandra Mehta, Rajkot vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 56/RJT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Takvani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44ASection 68

held that order passed under 263 of the Act 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. Therefore, in our considered view, the aforesaid decision cannot be applied in cases ... where due opportunity of being heard was granted to the assessee during the course of 263 proceedings. Accordingly, we are unable to agree with the contention/argument put forth by the assessee on this point. 6.3 The third argument by the assessee before us was that the issues on the basis

Jagdishram Mohanram Vishnoi, Nagaur vs. ITO, Surat

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

ITA 324/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.324/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Sh. Jagdishram Mohanram The Ito, Vs. Vishnoi, Ward – 3(3)(1), C/O. J. B. International, Makrana Surat J-16, M/S Mgb & Co. Llp, Lal Kothi Yojana, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur - 302015 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adzpv0571H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, I restore the matter ... file of ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking ITA.324/SRT/2023/AY.2018-19 Sh. Jagdishram Mohanram Vishnoi order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, I deem it fit and proper to set aside

Alok Maheshwari, Jaipur vs. Income-Tax Officer Ward 1(3), Jaipur

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

ITA 570/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl.CITa

Section 271B

passed the ex parte order dated 31-03-2021 confirming the penalty of Rs.1.50 lacs u/s 271B of the Act without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 3.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). 2.10 We have heard ... Bench does not want to go into merit of the case but it is imperative that the assessee must be provided adequate opportunity of being heard by the ld. CIT(A). In this view of the matter, the Bench feels that the assessee should be given one more chance

Milestone Dewellers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 565/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147

examination of books of account which have been maintained property and (ii) valuation report. In the instant case, the DVO has given ample opportunity of being heard and considered the documents furnished by the appellant The AO has issued to show cause notice as to why not the value ... investment after taking into account such evidence as the assesse may proto and any other evidence in his possession gathered after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. (5) The Valuation Officer may estimate the value of the asset proper a investment to the best of his judgment