← 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

Nahar Colours and Coatinhgs Private Limited, Udaipur vs. Principal Commissioner Ofincometax, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/JODH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Aug 2023AY 2018-19
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801ASection 80I

matter has set aside to the file of the AO for passing a fresh order on the issue after affording proper opportunity of being heard to the assesse. The degree and extent of evidence required by the PCIT/CIT in arriving at his "opinion would be much lower than the evidence

Kunwar Pal Sharma, Bulandshahr vs. ITO Ward 2(3)2, Bulandshahar

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

ITA 393/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Kunwar Pal Sharma, Ito Ward 2(3)2, Bulandshahr, Up 730, Radha Nagar, Bulandshar, Uttar Pradesh 203001 Vs. Pan Bufps 7337 L (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee: None For Revenue : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of Nfac, New Delhi Dated 21.12.2022 For A.Y. 2017-18. 2. When The Appeal Was Called For Hearing Neither The Assessee Nor Any Authorized Representative Appeared Nor Any Adjournment Application Has Been Filed Despite Several Notices. However, Or Perusal Of The Appeal Records & Impugned Order, We Find That The Appeal Can Be Disposed Of Ex-Parte Qua Assessee After Hearing The Arguments Of Ld. Senior Dr. Therefore We Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeal Ex-Parte Qua Assessee. 3. On Being Asked By The Bench The Ld. Senior Dr, In All Fairness, Did Not Controvert The Factual Observations Of The Bench That The Assessing Officer Has Passed Ex-Parte Order U/S. 144 Of The Act & The Ld. Cit(A) Has Also Dismissed Appeal Of Assessee Dismissing The Request Of Assessee To Keep Penalty Proceedings In Abeyance On Account Of Pendency Of First Appeal Of Assessee & The Assessee Was Not Allowed Opportunity Of Being Heard & To Explain His Case Before The Authorities Below. 4. Therefore In View Of Above Factual Position Of The Case We Find It Appropriate To Restore The Matter To The File Of Assessing Officer For A Fresh Adjudication Of Issue Of Imposing Of Penalty For Non Compliance Of Notice After Allowing Due Opportunity Of Hearing To The Assessee & Without Being Influenced With The Earlier Orders.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 144

assessee to keep penalty proceedings in abeyance on account of pendency of first appeal of assessee and the assessee was not allowed opportunity of being heard and to explain his case before the authorities below. 4. Therefore in view of above factual position of the case we find it appropriate

Karanpal Singh, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward 2(5), Khatauli

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1671/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271A

assessee was not given effective representation during the course of assessment proceedings. Moreover, Ld.CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal without affording adequate opportunity of being heard. 7. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the assessee has been negligent throughout the proceedings and did not appear before

Karanpal Singh, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward 2(5), Khatauli

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1670/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271A

assessee was not given effective representation during the course of assessment proceedings. Moreover, Ld.CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal without affording adequate opportunity of being heard. 7. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the assessee has been negligent throughout the proceedings and did not appear before

Aero Club, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-49(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2957/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Pradip Dinodia, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 270A

under: “5. Under Section 254 of the Income-tax Act, the Appellate Tribunal may, after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit. The power of the Tribunal in dealing with appeals is thus expressed in the widest ... Assessing Officer shall, in conformity with the directions of ld. DRP, complete the assessment without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee, within one month from the end of the month in which such direction is received which date was 31.07.2022. The ld. AR argued that contrary

Deusch Kyosel Engineering P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-7(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1669/DEL/2022[2016-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2016-16

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Deusch Kyosel Acit Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs Circle – 7 (1) 209, 2Nd Floor, Pocket-6 New Delhi Vasant Kunj, Saraaqati Towers-1, New Delhi-110070 Pan No.Aaecd7128D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 68

directed to decide the appeal afresh on merits of the case after affording a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 6. Decision announced in the open court 09.08.2023. [YOGESH KUMAR

ACIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi vs. Neha Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1949/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 142(3)Section 147Section 148

facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the order has been passed by the AO without affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.” 4. In ITA No. 1026/Del/2021, following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. On the facts and circumstances

Shashi Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 49(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 1439/DEL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Jaspal Singh, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153C

remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. We order accordingly. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced

Neha Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, CC-14, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1026/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 142(3)Section 147Section 148

facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the order has been passed by the AO without affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.” 4. In ITA No. 1026/Del/2021, following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. On the facts and circumstances

ACIT Central Circle-14, New Delhi vs. Neha Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 884/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 142(3)Section 147Section 148

facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the order has been passed by the AO without affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.” 4. In ITA No. 1026/Del/2021, following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. On the facts and circumstances

ACIT Central Circle-14, New Delhi vs. Neha Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 883/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 142(3)Section 147Section 148

facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the order has been passed by the AO without affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.” 4. In ITA No. 1026/Del/2021, following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. On the facts and circumstances

Neha Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-6, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 9618/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 142(3)Section 147Section 148

facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the order has been passed by the AO without affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.” 4. In ITA No. 1026/Del/2021, following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. On the facts and circumstances

Neha Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-6, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 9617/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 142(3)Section 147Section 148

facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the order has been passed by the AO without affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.” 4. In ITA No. 1026/Del/2021, following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. On the facts and circumstances

Neha Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-6, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 9616/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 142(3)Section 147Section 148

facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the order has been passed by the AO without affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.” 4. In ITA No. 1026/Del/2021, following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. On the facts and circumstances

Neha Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-6, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 9615/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 142(3)Section 147Section 148

facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the order has been passed by the AO without affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.” 4. In ITA No. 1026/Del/2021, following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. On the facts and circumstances

Modernistic Attire (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Gurgaon

In the result, ground no. 7 to10 of the assessee’s appeal of the assessee are allowed and the aggregate addition of Rs

ITA 7669/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15 & Asstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty
Section 145(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 234B

warranting such addition and by recording incorrect facts and findings and merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures and without giving the opportunity of being heard and without observing the principles of natural justice. 4. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action ... warranting such addition and by recording incorrect facts and findings and merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures and without giving the opportunity of being heard and without observing the principles of natural justice. 4. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action

Modernistic Attire (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Gurgaon

In the result, ground no. 7 to10 of the assessee’s appeal of the assessee are allowed and the aggregate addition of Rs

ITA 7668/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15 & Asstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty
Section 145(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 234B

warranting such addition and by recording incorrect facts and findings and merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures and without giving the opportunity of being heard and without observing the principles of natural justice. 4. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action ... warranting such addition and by recording incorrect facts and findings and merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures and without giving the opportunity of being heard and without observing the principles of natural justice. 4. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action

Vrk Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 2(5), Noida

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2295/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 145(3)Section 68

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Noida erred in passing the impugned order dated 27.02.2017 ex-parte without providing the Appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Ld. A.O. in 2 rejecting the books of accounts under section

Khomram Chandrawanshi (HUF), Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-4(1), Raipur

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

ITA 165/RPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 165/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Khomram Chandrawanshi (Huf) House No.18, Ring Road Chowk, Krishnasakha Society, Rohinipuram, Raipur-492 001 (C.G) Pan : Aakhk2082E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sakshi Gopal Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 4

assessee was afforded sufficient opportunity in the course of penalty proceedings, thus, it was incorrect on its part to claim that no opportunity of being heard was afforded to it. It was submitted by the ld. D.R that now when the assessee HUF in compliance to the SCN, dated ... such penalty was called for in its case. We are of a strong conviction that the very purpose of affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to an assessee as per the mandate of Sec. 274(1) of the Act would not only be frustrated, but would be rendered

Income Tax Officer-1, Raigarh vs. M/S Sumit Global Pvt. Ltd, Raigarh

In the result appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 97/RPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Shri V.K.Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)

back to files of Ld AO for verification of facts with consideration of aforesaid aspects of the issue and to decide afresh. Reasonable opportunity of being heard and to submit the necessary evidence to be provided to the assessee. In the result appeal of the revenue is partly allowed