“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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 143/RPR/2023[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Aug 2023AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 143, 145 & 147/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 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 147Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

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, the penalty confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) is illegal inasmuch as the penalty order passe ... 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 is trite law that any legal right, including the right to be heard, can only

Rajendra Kumar Agrawal, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 130/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.130/Rpr/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Year: 2018-19 Rajendra Kumar Agrawal Vs Principal Commissioner Of Income Gandhi Chowk Tax, Raipur-1 Neora, Raipur (C.G.) 493114 Pan No. Acipa 5919L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारितीती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Praveen Goyel, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/08/2023 घोषणाणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24 /08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Dated 16.03.2023 U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “ 1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Order Passed By Id. Pr. Cit-1, Raipur U'S 263 Of The Act Dated 16/03/2023 Is Illegal & Void- Ab-Initio, 2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit-1. Raipur Failed To Demonstrate That How The Order Passed By The Ao Is Erroneous Which Caused Prejudice To The Revenue. 3. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit-1. Raipur Has Stated In The Order That No Adverse Inference Is Drawn On The Issues Raised In Notice U/S 263, However, Set Aside The Proceedings Initiated U/S 263 Of The Act, Hence, The Same Is Contradictory & Incorrect. 4. The Appellant Craves To Add, Alter Or Delete Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal During The Course Of Appellate Proceedings,”

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Goyel, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 194JSection 263Section 40Section 438Section 80C

order in a speaking manner in the light of above discussion, after making all necessary enquiries required and after providing due and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after considering all the submissions, etc. made and counter-reply submitted by the assessee in a fair and judicious ... aside to the file of Ld. AO, there is no prejudice caused to the assessee. The assessee was granted proper and adequate opportunity of being heard and to submit his explanation again before the Ld. AO, therefore, the order of the Ld. PCIT shall be sustained. 10. We have heard

Basanti Automobiles, Januganj Golai vs. ITO Ward-2, Balasore

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

ITA 226/CTK/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack23 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2014-15 Basanti Basanti Automobiles, Automobiles, 1, 1, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Januganj Januganj Golai, Golai, Po/Ps: Po/Ps: Balasore Januganj, Dist: Balasore Januganj, Dist: Balasore Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaifb 8729 K (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar P.K.Mishra, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/0 /08/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), , Nfac, Nfac, Delhi, Delhi, Dated 25.5.2023 25.5.2023 In In Appeal Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023 /Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1053160486(1) For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Shri P.K.Mishra, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri P.K.Mishra, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri P.K.Mishra, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue. S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

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

Section 250

back to him for disposing of the appeal of the assessee afresh on merit in accordance with law after giving proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to make due compliance before the ld. CIT(A) and extend all the possible cooperation

The Press Club of Odisha, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO (Exemption) Ward, Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 179/CTK/2022[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack23 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2014-15 The Press Club Of Odisha, The Press Club Of Odisha, Vs. Income Income Tax Tax Officer Officer Qr. No.Vii Ds1/1, Master Qr. No.Vii Ds1/1, Master (Exemptions), (Exemptions), Ward, Ward, Canteen Canteen Square, Square, Unit Unit-Iii, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aactt 3137 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.Parida, Ca D.Parida, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/0 /08/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Aga This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Inst The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Cit(A), Nfac, Nfac, Delhi, Delhi, Dated 23.10.2022 In Appeal No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1046453146(1) For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2014- 15. 2. Shri D.Parida, Ca Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Shri D.Parida, Ca Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Shri D.Parida, Ca Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue. Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri D.Parida, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR

Section 143(1)Section 154

order of the ld CIT(A) and remit the matter back to his file to decide the appeal afresh after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the ld CIT(A) by furnishing necessary details for disposal of the appeal

Falguni Samir Mehta, Mumbai vs. ACIT-19(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1310/MUM/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Falguni Samir Mehta, Acit-19(1), 303, Mansarovar, Mount Pleasant Room No. 203, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Road, Mumbai-400006. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400007. Pan No. Abeps 6347 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Gosalia / Isha ShahFor Respondent: Mr. Prakash D Choughule, Sr DR

Section 148Section 69C

provided copies of the reasons recorde copies of the reasons recorded to the assessee and d to the assessee and thereafter providing due opportunity of being heard, he completed thereafter providing due opportunity of being heard thereafter providing due opportunity of being heard the assessment

Sudhir Vrundavandas Valia, Mumbai vs. ACIT-Cir-20(1), Mumbai

ITA 1096/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 80ISection 90

Year 2018-19 after examining the claim of deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act afresh after giving the Appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is clarified that as regards the merits of the claim of deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act are concerned

M/S. Nilamber Dyeing and Bleaching Mills Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 1990/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalenilamber Dyeing & Vs. Ito Circle 5(2)(1), Bleaching Mills Pvt Ltd Aayakar Bhavan, 12/2, Sethia Bhavan Dr. M.K.Road, Dd Sathe Marg, Mumbai-400020. Girgaon-400004, Mumbai Pan/Gir No. : Aabcn8531H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Ms. R.M. Brindha.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/ Cit(A) Passed U/S 143(1) & 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. R.M. Brindha.DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

Mumbai. 1.4 The Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) (CIT(A))- National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) ought to have given an opportunity of being heard. 2.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) - NFAC erred in disallowing payment/deposit

Shri Gurmeet Singh, Bathinda vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 1 ( 3), Bathinda

In the result, both the appeals of the assesse are allowed for

ITA 148/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgl, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Digvijai Kumar Chaudhary, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271FSection 69

Company vs. CIT reported in 249 ITR 216 in which their Lordships of Supreme Court of India 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 not done ... after considering the written submission and evidences filed on record and may be filed before him during the fresh proceedings after granting sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assesse. Gurmeet Singh v. ITO 13. In ITA 147/Asr/2023 the appellant challenged upholding the levy of penalty u/s 271F

Shri Gurmeet Singh, Bathinda vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1 (3), Bathinda

In the result, both the appeals of the assesse are allowed for

ITA 147/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgl, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Digvijai Kumar Chaudhary, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271FSection 69

Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Amritsar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Amritsar

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 65/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

interest of revenue. Thus, assessment order under consideration is set aside. The Assessing Officer is directed to make denovo assessment after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in view of the observations made above.” 6. We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available

Sukhmani Society for Citizen Services, Bathinda vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption) Ward, Amritsar

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

ITA 486/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. J. K. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Digvijai Kumar Chaudhary, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 12A

Punjab & Haryana High Court which is being claimed to be delivered in favor of the assessee. The CIT(A) shall grant an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the Assessing Officer (AO), Sukhmani Society for Citizen Services v. ITO while adjudicating the matter. Accordingly, both the appeals

Skhmani Society for Citizen Services, Bathinda vs. Income Tax Officer ( Exemptions), Ward, Amritsar

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

ITA 485/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. J. K. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Digvijai Kumar Chaudhary, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 12A

Shri Dharminder Singh, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Oficer, Ward-4 (1), Amritsar

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

ITA 127/ASR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Mohit Kumar Nigam, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 2Section 69

while making the addition and CIT(A) has also erred in law and on facts while confirming the same. 10. That no reasonable opportunity of being heard was granted to the appellant. 3 Dharminder Singh v. ITO Accordingly it is prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming

Mohd Nazir, Sambhal vs. ITO, Sambhal

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

ITA 813/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Mohd Nazir, Vs Ito, S/O-Tahir Husain, R/O-Raisatti, Sambhal. Joya Road, Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh-244302. Pan-Afkpn1424J Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Mohd Saim, Adv. & Shri Mohd Nazir, Assessee In Person Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 23.08.2023

Section 144Section 69

effective representation on behalf of the assessee. The principles of natural justice demands that everyone should be afforded a fair and effective opportunity of being heard for explaining the facts. Therefore, to sub-serve the principle of natural justice, I hereby set aside the impugned order and restore the matter

Shalini Gupta, Germany vs. ACIT, Circle Int.Tax. 1(3)(1), New Delhi

ITA 628/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmashalini Gupta Vs. Acit, Habsburger Str 7, Circle Int. Tax 1(3)(1) Duesseldorf 4057, New Delhi Germany 999999 Pan : Bnrpg7735F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139Section 147Section 69

note of AO’s observation made in the remand report as discussed at para 4.1.3.1 above that the assessee has been given enough opportunity of being heard and has not been prevented by sufficient cause to produce the evidence during the assessment proceeding. However, so far the assessing officer

DCIT, Central Circle-1, New Delhi vs. Spicejet Limited, Gurgaon

ITA 2183/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 43A

taking into consideration all the facts and contentions of the assessee and to decide the issue in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus, we restore ground no. 1 and 1.2 of grounds of appeal of the assessee to the file

DCIT, Central Circle-01, New Delhi vs. Spicejet Limited, Gurgaon

ITA 2182/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 43A

Spicejet Ltd, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, New Delhi

ITA 1803/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 43A

Spicejet Ltd, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, New Delhi

ITA 1802/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 43A

The Golden State Capital Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. DCIT Circle 3(1)(1), International Taxation, Delhi

ITA 1686/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganeshthe Golden State Capital Pte Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 31, Tanglin Road, #03,-04, St. Circle-3(1)(1), Regis Residences, Singapore, International Taxation, Singapore, Singapore, 247912 Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aagct8026Q Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv Shri Anmol, Adv Shri Priya, Adv Revenue By: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 31/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 23/08/2023

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 282A(1)

draft assessment proceedings. Further, as per the provisions of section 144C(13) of the Act, the ld. AO was prohibited from granting any opportunity of being heard to the Assessee, which included any document requisition from Assessee, post directions of ld. DRP. In the instant case, the ld. AO proceeded