“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

Madan Mohan Mishra, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 796/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.796/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Madan Mohan Mishra बिधम/ Income Tax Office- R. 80 Ttc, Industrial Area 10(3)(3) Vs. Midc, Rabal, Navi Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-4000701. Mumbai-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpm3701B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. L. Jain Revenue By: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-17, Mumbai Dated 29.12.2017 For Ay. 2012-13. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act’) Of Rs.22,70,610/- Which Assessee Claims To Be Agricultural Income & Disallowance Of Rs.36,967/- As Expenses. 3. Brief Facts As Noted By The Ao Is That The Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income Declaring Total Income At Rs.14,93,823/-. Later, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Ao Noted That The Assessee Had Shown Agricultural Income Of Rs.38,01,400/- Which Was Claimed As Exempt Income. However, According To Ao, The Assessee Failed To Prove That He Had Earned Exempt/Agricultural Income

For Appellant: Shri S. L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. DR)

Section 68

authority, that reads thus : "We will straightway agree with the assessee's submission that the ITO had not given to the assessee proper opportunity of being heard." That the assessee could have placed evidence before the first appellate authority or before the Tribunal is really of no consequence ... aside the order of assessment and remand the matter to the assessing authority for fresh assessment after giving to the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard. 6 A.Y. 2012-13 Madan Mohan Mishra 2. Two questions were placed before the High Court, of which the second question

Jai Prakash Suwalka, Udaipur vs. Addl. CIT, Range-TDS, Udaipur

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

ITA 152/JODH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur14 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Section 206C(1)Section 206C(6)Section 271CSection 273B

assessee prayed that the ld. CIT(A) has passed the ex-parte order and the assessee was not provided adequate opportunity of being heard. Thus, the assessee may be provided one more opportunity to advance his arguments/submissions before the ld. CIT(A) in the interest of equity and justice

Creative Propmart Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Udaipur

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

ITA 117/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur14 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 68

Shri Nirmal Singh S/O Shri Niranjan Singh, Faridkot vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Faridkot

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

ITA 52/ASR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. J. K. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Ratinder Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 148

case. So, the matter may be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer to pass denovo assessment order for granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 3. Per contra, the ld. Addl. CIT-DR for the Department submitted that although the AO has passed ... however, he has no objection in remanding the matter back to the file of the AO to pass denovo assessment after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. We have heard the rival contention, perused the material available on record, and the impugned order. Admittedly, the appellant

Shri Nirmal Singh S/ O Shri Niranjan Singh, Faridkot vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -3 (4), Faridkot

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

ITA 51/ASR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. J. K. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Ratinder Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 148

Shri Satnam Singh, Kapurthala vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax ( OSD) Central Circle -1, Jalandhar

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

ITA 155/ASR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Dr. Vedanshu Tripathi, CIT DR

file of the ld. CIT(A)-5, Ludhiana to pass a speaking order on merits of the case after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant assessee after considering the material available on record and written submissions to be filed by the assessee in the course

Shri Satnam Singh, Kapurthala vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax ( OSD) Central Circle-, Jalandhar

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

ITA 154/ASR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Dr. Vedanshu Tripathi, CIT DR

Shri Satnam Singh, Kapurthala vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax ( OSD) Central Circle-1, Jalandhar

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

ITA 153/ASR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Dr. Vedanshu Tripathi, CIT DR

Ayaan Buildcon Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-29, New Delhi

ITA 2267/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Dr. B. R. R. Kumarayaan Buildcon Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, H-104, Friends Apartments, Ip Central Circle-29, Extension, Patparganj, New New Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aakca4383R

For Appellant: Sh. Prince Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

same was bad in law and invalid. The ld AR submitted that the assessee has not Ayaan Buildcon Pvt. Ltd been allowed opportunity of being heard therefore, first appellate order may kindly be set aside. 3. Replying to the above the ld Sr. DR supported the orders of the authorities

Sona Blw Precision Forgings Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range-8, New Delhi

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

ITA 525/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Ms. Aditi Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 92C

issue of benchmarking of the international transaction of guarantee fee/commission to the file of the Ld. AO/TPO for deciding afresh after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ground of the appeal of the assessee, are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.” Ld. Counsel for the assessee pleaded ... consider the issue afresh in the light of the aforesaid observations of the Tribunal. Needless to add, assessee should be granted an opportunity of being heard.” 9. It is not disputed that the ld. CIT(A) in paragraph 5.6 of the impugned order has followed the decision of predecessor

ITO, Ward-6(3), New Delhi vs. Conventional Traders P.Ltd, New Delhi

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

ITA 4760/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2012-13 Ito Conventional Traders Pvt. Ward- 6 (3) Vs Ltd. Shop No.3, A-5, New Delhi Ground Floor, Madhu Vihar, New Delhi Pan No.Aaecc6582G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133Section 68

examined by the CIT(A). 15. The CIT(A), therefore, is directed to decide the appeal afresh after affording a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 16. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court

Gudibandi Somireddy Educational Society, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Guntur

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

ITA 131/VIZ/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.130/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :-Na-) Sri Ravindranath Educational Vs. Income Tax Officer Development Society (Exemptions) D.No.5-50-17 Guntur 6/14, Brodiepet Guntur [Aagas8819N] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.131/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :-Na-) Sri Gudibandi Somireddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Educational Society (Exemptions) D.No.5-76, Kollipara Guntur Guntur [Pan : Aagts4541J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 31.05.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessees Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption) [Cit(E)] Dated 24.02.2023. Since The Issue Involved In These Appeals Is Common, These Appeals Are 2

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

Section 10ASection 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

before 10.01.2023 as per the questionnaire given in detail. However, there is no response from the assessee and the assessee was given final opportunity of being heard vide ntoice dated 06.02.2023 to submit the information. However, there was no response from the assessee and the assessee has not filed ... Ld.AR further submitted that the reply filed by the assessee on 08.12.2022 is not considered and therefore, pleaded to afford one more opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(E) to substantiate it’s case. 6. Per contra, the Ld.DR submitted that the assessee was given sufficient opportunities of being

Ravindranath Educational Development Society, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Guntur

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

ITA 130/VIZ/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

Section 10ASection 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

Meka Kasi Viseswarudu, Vizianagaram vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vizianagaram

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

ITA 212/VIZ/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.212/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Meka Kasi Visweswarudu Vs. Income Tax Officer K-5 Pradeep Nagar Ward-1 Vt Agraharam Vizianagaram Vizianagaram [Pan : Abvpm2320H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri YA Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri ON Hari Prasada Rao, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

disclosed in the returns, they are not liable to capital gains tax. The Ld.AR further submitted that the assessee is not given opportunity of being heard before the AO to verify and bring facts on record. He, therefore, pleaded to set aside the order passed by the Ld.CIT ... afford an opportunity of being heard before the AO to substantiate his claim. 6. Per contra, Ld.DR relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(A), pleaded to uphold the same and dismiss the appeal of assessee. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record

Spectrum Infonet Pvt. Ltd., Raigarh vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 34/RPR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 33 & 34/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Spectrum Infonet Private Limited 601, South Gajanandpuram Colony, Kotra Road, Raigarh (C.G.)-496001 Pan : Aalcs5656E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263

interest of the revenue, set- aside the same, with a direction to him to adjudicate the same afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. Aggrieved the assessee company has assailed the order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s. 263 of the Act dated ... aside the assessment order, with a direction to the AO to reframe the same after examining the aforesaid issue and affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. For the sake of clarity the relevant observations of the Pr. CIT are culled out as under: “The aforesaid submissions

Spectrum Infonet Pvt. Ltd., Raigarh vs. Pr. CIT (Central), Bhopal

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 33/RPR/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263

Saroj Singh, Ambikapur, Surguja vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

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

ITA 121/RPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 121/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Saroj Singh Mominpura, Ambikapur, Surguja (C.G.)-497 001 Pan: Cndps7764K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1 ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263

aside the same with a direction to the A.O to re-adjudicate the said issue after conducting necessary verifications and affording an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. The assessee being aggrieved has assailed the order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s.263 of the Act dated

Vaibhav Global Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 96/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl.CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

were transferred to the jurisdictional AO. Therefore, this argument is found to be not acceptable. With regard to argument about opportunity of being heard , if no opportunity was provided the AO shall provide the appellant opportunity of being heard before passing the appeal effect order. 7. The second ground ... person against whom any action is sought to be taken and his right or interest is being affected, shall be given an equal opportunity of being heard and defend himself. It gives right to the party to respond to the evidence against them and to choose legal representative of their

Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra)Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT -8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1308/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Hiten ChandeFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das

Section 253Section 263

rebut the same. Thus, it is contrary to the provisions of section 263 of the Act, which specifically requires the grant of opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v/s Amitabh Bachchan, [2016] 384 ITR 200 (SC) observed as under

Kunthunath Religious Trust, New Delhi vs. CIT(E), New Delhi

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

ITA 853/DEL/2021[------]Status: HeardITAT Delhi13 Jul 2023

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: ----

Section 12A

details required by the CIT(Exemption) and the CIT(Exemption) is directed to decide the application afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 5. Decision announced in the open