← All Phrases

“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

Sanjeev Kumar, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-41(3), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1486/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

directed to examine the books of accounts and decide the issue afresh after affording a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee is directed to produce the books of accounts for verification. 9. In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Sanjeev Kumar, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-41(3), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1485/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

directed to examine the books of accounts and decide the issue afresh after affording a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee is directed to produce the books of accounts for verification. 9. In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

M/S. Regent Hotels, Rourkela vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalure

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

ITA 212/CTK/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack16 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.212/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Regent Hotel, Vs Ito, Ward-5, Rourkela Bisra Road, Rourkela-769011 Pan No. :Aakfr 4838 D (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16/08/2023 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, Delhi, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1051193390(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 11 Days, For Which The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition, Wherein He Has Mentioned That Delay Was On Account Of Sickness Of Wife Of The Partner Of Assessee. The Reason Filed By The Assessee Has Not Been Found To Be False. Consequently, The Delay Of 11 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Decision On Merits. 3. A Perusal Of The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Shows That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee On Account Of Delay. A Further Perusal Of The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Shows That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Reckoned The Delay From The Date Of The Intimation. However, The Appeal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 154

shall decide the issues in the appeal on merits after considering the delay after providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 16/08/2023. (जाजज माथन) (GEORGE

Anand Pershad Jaiswal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 4, New Delhi

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

ITA 7154/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Delhi16 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Deep Chand Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

required documents being requested from assessee, as the appellant is a NRI, but the order has been passed without giving any further opportunity of being heard.” 3. When the matter was called for hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted at the outset that the case was reopened under

Late Smt Sushila Bisarya, Bhopal vs. The Pr CIT-1, Bhopal

In the result, we are Shri Jignesh Lilachand Shah vs

ITA 89/IND/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanilate Smt. Sushila Bisarya Pr. Cit-1 L.H. Pramod Bisarya Bhopal Vs. 125 Malviya Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aewpb 2587 D Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.08.2023

Section 147Section 148Section 263

revenue and consequently set aside u/s 263 with the direction to the AO to make afresh assessment order after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assesse. Aggrieved by the impugned order of Pr. CIT the assesse has filed present appeal and raised following grounds of appeal: “1. That ... notice the reasons for the proposed transfer so that the assessee can make an effective representation with reference to those reasons. Further, the opportunity of being heard must be given to the assessee not only when the case is to be transferred despite the objection of the assessee, but also

Dillip Kumar Sahoo, Niali vs. ITO Paradeep Ward, Paradeep

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

ITA 210/CTK/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack14 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialassessment Year : 2014-15 Dillip Dillip Kumar Kumar Sahoo, Sahoo, X X Vs. Ito, Paradeep Paradeep Ward, Sadansa, Kapasi, Niali, Dist: Sadansa, Kapasi, Niali, Dist: Paradeep, Paradeep, Dist: Dist: Cuttack Jagatsinghpur Jagatsinghpur Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Dwbps 4286 N (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty

order of the ld CIT(A) and restore the issues to his file to decide afresh as per law after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Simultaneously, I direct the assessee to appear before the ld CIT(A) and furnish the relevant documents and materials

Rajendra Karbhari Bodake, Mumbai vs. ITO-28 (2)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 1771/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Jm)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

order passed by the learned CIT(A) and restore all the issues to this file for examining them afresh, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. we also direct the assessee to fully cooperate with the learned CIT(A) for expeditious disposal of the appeal

Manisha Navin Mor, Mumbai vs. The I.T.O-Ward 28(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1268/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Jm)

Section 115B

furnish all the information and explanations that may be called for by the Assessing Officer. After examining them and after providing adequate opportunity of being heard, the Assessing Officer may take appropriate decision in accordance with the law. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated

East West Finvest India Limited, Bilaspur vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1), Bilaspr

In the result, appeal of the assessee company being devoid and bereft of any merit is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 21/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Vijayvargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR
Section 131(1)(d)Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

dated 29th of December, 2017 under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dismissing the appeal of the Appellant without allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bilaspur erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,20,71,50,000/- made

M/S Purvi Finvest Limited, Bilaspur vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Bilaspur

In the result, appeal of the assessee company being devoid and bereft of any merit is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 20/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Vijayvargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR
Section 131(1)(d)Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

dated 29th of December, 2017 under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dismissing the appeal of the Appellant without allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bilaspur erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,21,88,00,000/- made

M/S Trimurthy Finvest Limited, Bilaspur vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Bilaspur

In the result, appeal of the assesse company being devoid and bereft of any merit is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 19/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Vijayvargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR
Section 131(1)(d)Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Trimurti Finvest Limited Vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur Income Tax Act, 1961, dismissing the appeal of the Appellant without allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bilaspur, erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,12,37,50,000/- made

Estate of Ramniklal Rajmal Mehta, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-8(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3279/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Jm)

Section 153ASection 168(1)Section 69A

this issue back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate on these three grounds afresh, after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the legal heir of Late Shri Ramniklal Mehta. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 1, 2 and 3 raised by the assessee are allowed

Estate of Ramniklal Rajmal Mehta, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-8(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3278/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Jm)

Section 153ASection 168(1)Section 69A

this issue back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate on these three grounds afresh, after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the legal heir of Late Shri Ramniklal Mehta. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 1, 2 and 3 raised by the assessee are allowed

Estate of Ramniklal Rajmal Mehta, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-8(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3277/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Jm)

Section 153ASection 168(1)Section 69A

this issue back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate on these three grounds afresh, after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the legal heir of Late Shri Ramniklal Mehta. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 1, 2 and 3 raised by the assessee are allowed

Estate of Ramniklal Rajmal Mehta, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-8(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3276/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Jm)

Section 153ASection 168(1)Section 69A

this issue back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate on these three grounds afresh, after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the legal heir of Late Shri Ramniklal Mehta. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 1, 2 and 3 raised by the assessee are allowed

Estate of Ramniklal Rajmal Mehta, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-8(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3275/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Jm)

Section 153ASection 168(1)Section 69A

this issue back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate on these three grounds afresh, after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the legal heir of Late Shri Ramniklal Mehta. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 1, 2 and 3 raised by the assessee are allowed

Deepak Kumar Rajoria, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Bikaner

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 170/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur11 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Assessing Authority Tax Was Paid & Adjust From Tds The Appellant Was Aware Of The Fact That There Is Any Form By Filing Which The Penalty May Be Dropped So The Penalty Was Never Leviable In This Case Therefore The Penalty U/S 270A May Please Be Cancelled. 3. The Appellant Prays For Justice & Relief. 4. The Appellant May Please Be Permitted To Raise Any Addition Or Alternative Ground At Or Before The Hearing.”

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271(1)(C)Section 274Section 80G

Deepak Kumar Rajoria vs. ITO issued to the assessee on 19.09.2019. Again the assessee vide this office letter dated 06.02.2020 was given opportunity of being heard fixing the hearing on 17.02.2020. In response said notice, the assessee has filed on 24.02.2020 online written submission. Contending that when the assessee

Rkd Financial Service Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-19(1), Delhi

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

ITA 989/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Rkd Financial Service Ltd., Vs Dcit, 308-309, Bhandari House, 91, Cirlce-19(1), Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019. Delhi. Pan-Aaacr0734R Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Khusboo Garg, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 19.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.08.2023

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)

verify the correctness of the claim and decide in afresh in accordance with law. Needless to say that AO would grant adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee is thus, allowed for statistical purposes. 15. In the result, the appeal of the assessee

The India Thermit Corporation Limited, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Special Range-9, Delhi

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for

ITA 55/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2023AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Vipin Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 154Section 251

CPC/1718/A6/1882324652 dated 6.3.2019, and the rectification order dated 21.05.2019 u/s 154 are bad in law, being passed without providing the assessee company any opportunity of being heard and in violation of the Principles of natural justice. 3. That Rs 73,36,334 added to income are not mistakes apparent from

Sharda Nigam, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 59(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 439/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C. आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No. 439/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2015-16 Sharda Nigam, Income Tax Officer, बनाम C–4, Takshila Apartments, Ward : 59 (2), N. Delhi. Vs. 57 - I. P. Extension, National Faceless Delhi – 110 092. Assessment Centre, Delhi. Pan No. Adspn7886Q अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: C. A
Section 148Section 69C

July, 2021 requested the Assessing Officer stating that the attached documents are not at all readable the attached documents defeat the purpose of opportunity of being heard and, therefore, requested either resend the readable documents on the basis of which case was re- opened or provide an opportunity