“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

Pyxis Exim Private Limitted, Mumbai vs. ITO 15(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2020/MUM/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Pyxis Exim Private Limited V. Income Tax Officer – 15(2)(1) D-502, Xanadu Building Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Prathamesh Complex Mumbai - 400020 Veera Desai Road, Andheri (W) Mumbai - 400058 Pan: Aadcp2761P (Appellant) (Respondent)

alleged accommodation entries.” 3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld.CIT(A) passed exparte order without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, therefore, considering additions/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested that the matter may be restored ... keeping in view the additions/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, we are of the opinion that assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard in the interest of principles of natural justice. Thus, this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication

Smt. Bharti Singh, Amritsar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3, Amritsar

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

ITA 223/ASR/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar18 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Bansal, Adv. &

that the matter may be remanded back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter afresh after granting adequate opportunity of being heard and considering the fact of the of assessee. 3 Bharti Singh v. Dy. CIT 4. Per contra, the ld. Addl. CIT-DR failed ... file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter afresh on the issues raised by the appellant assessee after granting sufficient opportunity of being heard and considering the material evidence filed on record and to be filed in the course of afresh proceedings, appreciating the correct 4 Bharti Singh

Vos Technologies India P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 26(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 1156/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Akshit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 68

careful consideration, we remit the issue to the file of AO. AO shall consider the issue de novo after giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 18th

Cae Simulation Training P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes subject to the direction contained in para 9 above

ITA 2573/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: S/Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

passing the impugned order on mere conjectures and surmises, without considering the submissions made during the course of proceedings and without providing any opportunity of being heard, which is in gross violation of principles of natural justice. 1.2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts

M/S Adim Jati Seva Sahkari Samiti, Maryadit, Korba vs. Income Tax Officer-2, Korba

In the result, the assessee's appeal is dismissed in terms of our observations above

ITA 50/RPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 50/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Adim Jati Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Korba, Korba P.O, Chhattisgarh-495 677 Pan : Aadaa9825F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-2, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 129Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 142(1)(i)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 250Section 69A

Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre ("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. Further, the Ld.CIT(A) has grievously erred in summarily ... Appeals) before us reveals three reasons, viz. (i). the CIT(Appeals) has erred in disposing off the appeal without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee; (ii). the CIT(Appeals) had grievously erred in summarily dismissing the appeal by not rendering any decision on the merits

Kunj Bihari Dawa Dukan, Ambikapur, Surguja vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 122/RPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.122/Rpr/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 V. Kunj Bihari Dawa Dukan Pcit Opp. Govt. Distt. Hospital, Raipur - 1 Bilaspur Road Ambikapur, Surguju Chhattisgarh – 497 001

For Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

assessee. Revision order is liable to be cancelled on this account. 10. Sec. 263 envisages passing of revision order "after giving assessee an opportunity of being heard. Before deciding an issue, providing of opportunity to assessee is essential. Absence of opportunity vitiates the validity of revision order. Reliance

Muhammadsabir Abdulkarim Katpicewala, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2)(3), Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 489/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.488 & 489/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Physical Court Hearing) Muhammadsabir Abdulkarim Income Tax Officer Katpicewala Vs. Ward-2(2)(3) Surat, Aaykar H.No. 2092, Opp. Champa Masjid Bhawan, Majura Gate, Opp. Sindhi Wad, Bhagat Talao, Surat- New Civil Hospital, Surat- 395003 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aeupa 1727 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, Ca िनधा"रती की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing 14/09/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 18/09/2023

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

Muhammadsabir A Katpicewala 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. Accordingly, we restore the issue back to the file of the assessing officer for considering of the issue afresh

Muhammadsabir Abdulkarim Katpicewala, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2)(3), Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 488/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

Durga Devi Sohan Lal Khatri Charitable Trust, Ajmer vs. The CIT Exemption, Jaipur

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

ITA 327/JPR/2023[Not Applicable]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2023

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

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Singh Shekhawat- ProxyFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)

Section 12ASection 80G

made by the Appellant and on the basis of reasons that are not connected with genuineness of activities of trust. Further, no proper opportunity of being heard was provided to Appellant for submitting additional documents. It is thus hereby prayed for quashing the rejection order so passed and order ... Exemption) grossly erred in rejecting the application made by the Appellant for seeking exemption under Section 80G without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. It is thus hereby prayed for quashing the said rejection order so made as it was against the principles of natural justice

Durga Devi Sohan Lal Khatri Charitable Trust, Jaipur vs. The CIT Exemption, Jaipur

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

ITA 326/JPR/2023[NOT APPLICABLE]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2023

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

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Singh Shekhawat- ProxyFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)

Section 12ASection 80G

Jagat Singh Rathore, Tonk vs. ITO WD 7(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 139/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CITa

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 68

considered those submissions and rejected after a detailed discussion on each and every point raised. I have noticed that AO had given opportunity of being heard to the appellant before making addition. AO had also discussed and incorporated appellant’s Submission in the assessment Order. Further, AO is found

Narendra Agrawal, Jabalpur vs. ITO-Ward 1 (2), Jabalpur

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

ITA 25/JAB/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur15 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 25 & 26/Jab/2023 (A.Y: 2012-13 & 2016-17) Narendra Agrawal, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2), 932, Wright Town, Annexe Building, Jabalpur 482001, Aayakar Bhavan, Madhyapradesh. Jabalpur, Madhyapradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Adopa3476D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Sapanusrethe, Adv.Ar Respondentby : Shri.Shiv Kumar.Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15.09.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Different Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi / Cit(A) & Passed The Order U/Sec 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri.SapanUsrethe, Adv.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Shiv Kumar.Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 154Section 43B

seems to be in some sort of hurry that made him pass the impugned order. Thus, For the lack of opportunity of being heard and in violation of the fundamental right, the present Appellate order dated 16/12/2022 is liable to be quashed. 3. Further, the appellant is willing to produce ... does not meanmerely filing of the appeal but effectivelypursuing it". The said case law is clearly differentiable as the fundamental right of final opportunity of being heard was not given to the appellant, thus, the present Appellate order dated 16/12/2022 is liable to be quashed. 3. Further, the appellant

Jt CIT (OSD), CC-3(1), Mumbai vs. Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 498/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blejt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani Central Circle – 3(1) 1, Sundaram Bunglow Room No. 1924, 19Th Floor Lambe Hanuman Road Air India Building, Nariman Point Opp. Saiffe Society Mumbai – 400 021 Gujrat - 395006 Pan: Ajyps2262F (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.164/Mum/2021 [Arising Out Of Ita No. 498/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2007-08)] Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani V. Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) 1, Sundaram Bunglow Central Circle – 3(1) Room No. 1924, 19Th Floor Lambe Hanuman Road Air India Building, Nariman Point Opp. Saiffe Society Mumbai – 400 021 Gujrat - 395006 Pan: Ajyps2262F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Bharat Kumar Department Represented By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 153A

that the Assessing Officer shall not direct the assessee to get the accounts so audited unless the assessee has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 5.2 Hence, the key requirement for ordering special audit would be the “nature and complexity of accounts” with reference to the interest ... that the Assessing Officer shall not direct the assessee to get the accounts so audited unless the assessee has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Page No.16 C.O.No. 164/MUM/2021 Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani 32. From the above, it is clear that a case can be referred to the special

ACIT(Ltu-1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tcs Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5904/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10ASection 115JSection 14ASection 19Section 40Section 90(1)(a)

additional evidences furnished before us, we restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We make it clear, our aforesaid direction is only with regard to the experience certainty expenditure of ₹ 5.28 crore. The decision of learned

Tata Consultancy Serrvices Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-1, Mumbai

ITA 5199/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10ASection 115JSection 14ASection 19Section 40Section 90(1)(a)

Shri Raj Kumar, Abohar vs. Assistant Comissioer of Income Tax Circle-1, Bathinda

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

ITA 150/ASR/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Sept 2023AY 2018-2019

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AR

Section 69A

file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter afresh on the issues raised by the appellant assessee after granting sufficient opportunity of being heard and considering the material evidence filed on record and to be filed in the course of afresh proceedings. At the same time, the appellant

Yashant Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-40(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 1168/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: the ld. CIT (A). Ld. CIT (A) noted that there was a delay of 169 days and assessee had not given reason for delay in the appeal filed but has contended that the same shall be produced at the time of hearing. Ld. CIT (A) did not find it acceptable, hence he dismissed the appeal being time barred. 4. Against this order, assessee is in appeal before us. We have heard both the parties and perused the records.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR

Section 44A

shall first consider the issue of condonation of delay before him by giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard. Thereafter, he will adjudicate as per law. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 15th

Saday Chartiable Trust, New Delhi vs. CIT(Exemption), New Delhi

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

ITA 1080/DEL/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Sept 2023AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri C. M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Atreya Gandhaudhury, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR

Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

completely the information/evidence brought on records at the time of filing application on merit in correct perspectives manner and without granting any fair opportunity of being heard while denying the rejection of registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3. The assessee has raised ... completely the information/evidence brought on records at the time of filing application on merit in correct perspectives manner and without granting any fair opportunity of being heard while denying the rejection of registration u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 4. We have heard the rival submissions

Saday Chartiable Trust, New Delhi vs. CIT (Exemption), New Delhi

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

ITA 1079/DEL/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Sept 2023AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri C. M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Atreya Gandhaudhury, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR

Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

Hira Infra-Tek Ltd., Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 77/RPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.77/Rpr/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 V. Hira Infra-Tek Limited Acit Hira Arcade Near New Bus Stand, Circle – 1(1) Pandri, Raipur Raipur

For Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 14A

adjudicate the issue afresh after such verification in accordance with law. Needless to say, that the assessee may be provided with reasonable opportunity of being heard. Consequently, order of Ld CIT(A) is set aside, and the issue is restored back to the file