“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

Amit Goel, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle-I, Faridabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 500/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C. M. Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 69A

erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in passing the impugned order without giving adequate opportunity of being heard and in gross violation of principles of natural justice.” 4. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted in the case ... calling for certain details/documents and explanations, however the same was not complied with inspite of giving reasonable opportunity of being heard. In the circumstances, after confronting the assessee, the AO completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act. 5. Even before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has not complied

Amit Goel, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Cirlce-I, Faridabad\

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 499/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C. M. Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 69A

Amit Goel, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle 1, Faridabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 498/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C. M. Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 69A

Sudhir Chauhan, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward 4(3), Gurgaon

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

ITA 3264/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[A.Y. 2015-16] Sudhir Chauhan Vs. Ito 103, Akd Tower, Sec-14, Gurgaon Ward – 4 (3) Haryana 122001 Gurgaon Pan No. Ablpc5721G

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr DR

Section 14ASection 68

proceeded by deciding the appeal exparte. 5. In our considered opinion the CIT(A) ought to have given a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard , therefore, in the interest of justice we deem it fit to restore the appeal to the files of the CIT(A) with a direction ... afford a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the appeal afresh. 4 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 7. Decision announced in the open court on 12.09.2023. [ANUBHAV SHARMA] [N.K. BILLAIYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated

Shri Pratishthan Turst, Nagpur vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 419/NAG/2019[00]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.419/Nag/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : - Shri Pratishthan Trust, The Cit Exemption, 59, Maithili Apartment, Vs Pune. Congress Nagar, Dhantoli, Nagpur – 440012. Pan: Aafts 7826 P Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Kailash Kanojiya – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 31/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12/09/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune Dated 31.10.2019 Under Section 12Aa(1)(B)(Ii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Order Passed By Commissioner Of Income Tax Exemption Pune Is Erroneous Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law. Shri Pratishthan Trust [A]

Section 12A

months from the date of application. 4. The learned CIT (Exemption) Pune has erred in not giving to the applicant trust proper opportunity of being heard before rejecting the application for registration U/s 12AA of the I.T. Act 1961. 5. The Honourable CIT Exemption Pune ought not to have rejected

Jaimeet Sawaira, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS), Raipur

ITA 175/RPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 175/Rpr/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2019-20

Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 234ESection 250

234E of the Income Tax Act, 1. 1961 ("the Act') is highly illegal, bad in law, suffers from legal infirmities, without affording adequate opportunity of being heard and hence liable to be quashed. It is prayed that the Appellate Order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National

Santosh Jain, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

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

ITA 148/RPR/2023[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Sept 2023AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 144, 146 & 148/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 1993-94, 1994-95 & 1995-96 Santosh Jain Opp. P.N Tiwari, Gandhi Chowk, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 Pan: Afypj6194D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

ground no.1 Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty without appreciating the fact that the A.O has levied penalty without providing any opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 3. Without prejudice to ground no.1 and 2, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty without appreciating the fact ... failure, namely to intimate his new address to the AO; and take recourse to the argument that penalty was imposed without providing any opportunity of being heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. It trite law that any legal right, including the right to be heard, can only

Santosh Jain, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

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

ITA 146/RPR/2023[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Sept 2023AY 1994-95

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

Santosh Jain, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

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

ITA 144/RPR/2023[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Sept 2023AY 1993-94

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

M/S Jaipur Colonizers & Developers, 404, 4Th Floor, Milestone Building, Gandhi Nagar Mode, Tonk Road vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 6(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 379/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agrawal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 142(2)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)

should be set aside. Alternatively, he prayed that since the appeal of the assessee decided ex-party assessee should be given an opportunity of being heard on merits. 6. Per contra, the ld. DR has objected to the prayer of the assessee and relied upon the finding ... aside the case to the file of the ld. CIT(A), so as to decide the case of the assessee after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same time, the assessee is directed to represent and present all the facts before

Worldwelfare Health Federation, Jaipur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), Jaipur

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

ITA 350/JPR/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Sept 2023AY 2022-23

Bench: Rejecting The Application For Registration U/S 12Ab. No Show Cause Notice Before The Rejection Of The Application Was Issued To The Assessee. 3. That The Ld. Cit(Exemption) Has Not Given Adequate Time For Submitting Responses To Notices U/S 133(6). Notices Were Issued On 24/03/2023 (Friday) To Three Parties & Without Waiting For Their Responses, The Order Of Rejection Was Issued On 28/03/2023 (Tuesday) In A Hurried Manner. 4. Appellant Craves The Right To Add, Alter, Modify Or Amend In Any Manner The Grounds Of Appeal On Or Before The Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Saraswat (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)

Section 12ASection 133(6)

based on conjectures and surmises. 2 Worldwelfare Health Federation vs. CIT (E) 2. That the Ld. CIT(Exemption) failed in affording the reasonable opportunity of being heard before rejecting the application for registration u/s 12AB. No show cause notice before the rejection of the application was issued to the assessee ... that assessee-trust is essentially established for the charitable purpose. GROUND NO. 2 That the Ld. CIT(Exemption) failed in affording the reasonable opportunity of being heard before rejecting the application for registration u/s 12AB. No show-cause notice before the rejection of the application was issued to the assessee

Rohitabh Soni, Kota vs. ITO, Ward 1(4), Kota

ITA 349/JPR/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Sept 2023AY 2014-2015

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

For Appellant: Sh. Saurabh Harsh (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

facts and in circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(Appeals) grossly erred in passing ex-parte assessment order without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard as no notices of the hearing was served properly on the assessee appellant. 2. That on the law and in the facts

Sarbeswar Routray, Bhubaneswar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(5), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 78/CTK/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack11 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialassessment Year : 2017-18 Sarbeswar Sarbeswar Routray, Routray, Plot Plot Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Income Tax Officer, Ward- No.745, No.745, Jharpada, Jharpada, 3(5), Bhubaneswar. 3(5), Bhubaneswar. Po:Laxmisagar Agar, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aiwpr 0796 A (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Natabar Panda Natabar Panda, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/09 9/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/0 /09/2023 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Natabar PandaFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty

issues are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for P a g e 3 | 4 readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court

Khushalrao Keshavrao Garje, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Banglore, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1866/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Rucha VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chogule

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

assessee cannot be made under section 154 of the Act unless notice is issued to the assessee in this regard and reasonable opportunity of being heard has been allowed to the assessee. However, no material has been brought on record by the Revenue to show that prior to making

Subhash, Sonipat vs. ITO, Ward-4, Sonipat

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

ITA 76/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Nikita Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg –SR. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

matter back to the file of the learned Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. We direct that the assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard and to make the necessary submission in support of his claim. We also direct the assessee to be diligent in attending the hearing fixed

Syed Nadeem Abbas, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-28(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 114/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sachin Jain, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg –SR. DR

Section 144

file of learned 4 Syed Abbas, Delhi- AY: 2016-17 Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals) for fresh adjudication by giving reasonable opportunity of being heard and by allowing the assessee to make submission. 6. Learned Senior DR did not object on the prayer so made by the learned counsel ... learned counsel and remit the matter back to the file of learned Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals) for fresh adjudication by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and allowing him to make his submission in support of the claim. The assessee is also directed to be diligent

Willis Towers Watson India Pvt Ltd, Haryana vs. ACIT, Circle 3(1), New Delhi

ITA 2064/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 234CSection 92C

Associated enterprises ("AES"). 5. The learned TPO erred in law and on facts and circumstance of the cases by not granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the Appellant, and thus, violated the principles of natural justice. 6. The learned AO/TPO and Hon'ble DRP have erred in not accepting

Raj Kumar Karanwal, Muzaffarnagar vs. Pr.CIT, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 644/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sankalp Malik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

case, Ld. Pr.CIT has erred in law and on facts in passing the impugned order u/s 263 and that too without providing the opportunity of being heard and in violation of principles of natural justice and without appreciating/considering the various replies, submissions and evidences filed by the assessee. 4. That

Chhattisgarh Power & Coal Benefication Ltd., Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Bilaspur

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 105/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.105/Rpr/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Shama, Sr

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 37Section 40A(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

matter to the files of Ld CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. Needless to say, that the assessee shall be provided with 6 reasonable opportunity of being heard and to furnish the necessary details. With such observations, we restore the issue back to file of LD CIT(A), consequently appeal

Shri Pankajbhai Karamshibhai Savani, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(3)(3), Surat

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

ITA 234/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.234/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Hearing) Pankajbhai Karamshibhai Savani, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(3), C-201, Saimilan Residence, Sudama Surat. Chowk, Mota Varachha, Surat - 395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Berps5247H (Assessee) (Respondent) Shri Ashwin K. Parekh, Ca Assessee By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 26/06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11/09/2023

Section 143(3)

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, we restore the matter ... back to the file of Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the order