“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

Midway Motors \Private Limited, Cuttack vs. Pr.CIT-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 148/CTK/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.148/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Midway Motors Private Limited, Vs Pr.Cit, Bhubaneswar-1 Plot No.554, Nuapada Chaak, Madhupatna, Cuttack-753010 Pan No. :Aajcm 8153 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr.Cit(Osd) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Bhubaneswar-1, Dated 11.01.2022, Passed In Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2021-22/1038622483(1), For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That There Is Delay Of 411 Days In Filing The Present Appeal, Which Was Due To Death Of The Accountant Of The Assessee, Who Was Looking After The Tax Matters Of The Assessee. The Affidavit Filed By The Assessee Has Not Been Found To Be False & The Reasons Given Are Found To Be Reasonable. Consequently, The Delay Of 411 Days In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Of The Assessee Is Disposed Off On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr.CIT(OSD)

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

erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue and direct the AO to examined the said issues after granting adequate opportunity of being heard. It was the submission by the ld. AR that in view of the decision of the coordinate bench of this Tribunal

Aj Energy Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Delhi

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

ITA 1190/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manvendra Goel, CIT(DR)

Section 142(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68Section 69C

circumstances of the case, the order passed by the NFAC is bad in law having been passed exparte without giving assessee an opportunity of being heard in clear violation of natural justice. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the NFAC has erred both on facts ... against the exparte order passed by the Ld CITIA) wherein the Ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without giving the assesses adequate opportunity of being heard. Page 4 of 14 ITA No.- 1190/Del/2022 M/s. AJ Energy Pvt.Ltd. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the case

ACIT, CC-17, New Delhi vs. Vista Distributors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2015/DEL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 124(3)(a)Section 127Section 127(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 163Section 263

General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chef Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it as possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, transfer any case from

Satpal Kaswan, Haryana vs. Ward-4(1), Gurgaon

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1848/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Sh. Ummed Kuntal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. B.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 36(1)(va)

case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs. CIT, 448 ITR 518 (SC). Before deciding the issue, the assessee must be provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes. 4. In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court

Satpal Kaswan, Haryana vs. Ward-4(1), Gurgaon

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1847/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Sh. Ummed Kuntal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. B.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 36(1)(va)

M B Malls P.Ltd, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-16(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 93/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kr. Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 68

circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in passed the order without providing proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant.” 3. The assessee is engaged in the business of building Mall. The assessee filed return of income on 26.09.2012 declaring

Shri Ayachi Chandrashekhar, Gandhidham vs. The DCIT, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhidham

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

ITA 442/RJT/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 442/Rjt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Shri Chandrashekhar Ayachi, D.C.I.T, Bbz-N-66, Bhai Pratap Circle, Vs. Gandhidham Circle, Gandhidham. Gandhidham. C/O. Kalpesh S. Doshi & Company, 411, Cosmo Complex Mahila College Circle, Rajkot-360001. Pan: Abupa6576E

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R

Section 68

assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. That, the learned CIT(A) has passed the order without affording proper opportunity of being heard. 2. That, the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the addition of Rs.40,64,021/- on account of unexplained gift u/s.68

Rameedevi Mulnath Sidh, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(3)(4), Surat

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 249/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Rameedevi Mulnath Sidh, I.T.O., 303, Shankheswar Complex, Yogi Ward 2(3)(4), Vs. Park, Althan, Surat, Gujarat-395017 Surat. Pan No. Adips 9728 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 272Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

well as law on the subject, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing ex parte order without giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming

M/S Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., E-8, Epip Riico Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-2, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 260/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 30Section 44

erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify

Dhanraj Sethia, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1

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

ITA 169/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Saraswat, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 194ASection 194A(3)(iii)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

aforesaid penalty / penalties on you should not be made of the Income Tax Act, 1961. If you do not avail yourself of this opportunity of being heard in person or through authorized representative, you may show cause in writing on or before the said date which will be considered before

M/S Rajasthan State Road Development & Construction Corporation Ltd., Setu Bhawan, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 150/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehara (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80Section 801ASection 801A(4)Section 80I

submitted let the assessee be given 12 M/s Rajasthan State Road Development & Construction Corporation Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT one more opportunity of being heard on any arguments that has not been made. 7. In the rejoinder the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee should be given justice

Mohammed Siraj, Jhunjhunu vs. ITO, Ward-1, Jhunjhunu

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

ITA 109/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia, CA &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234BSection 50CSection 54B

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

J.B.Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC -2(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2009/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 234ASection 234CSection 35

section 35 of the Act are fulfilled, pass an order in writing in Form No. 3 CM: Provided that a reasonable opportunity of being heard shall be granted to the company before rejecting an application. ―(7A) Approval of expenditure incurred on in-house research and development facility by a company ... delay in furnishing the return of income. We therefore direct the Assessing Officer to verify and delete the interest after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 24 2008 & 2009/Mum/2019 ITA 4656 & 4657/M/2018 J.B. Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd Refund of DDT 24. During the assessment year

J.B.Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC -2(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2008/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 234ASection 234CSection 35

J.B. Chemicals and Pharmaceutical Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4657/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 234ASection 234CSection 35

J.B. Chemicals and Pharmaceutical Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4656/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 234ASection 234CSection 35

Mamta Pande, Balangir vs. ITO Ward-1, Balangir

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

ITA 35/CTK/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.35/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Mamta Pande, Vs Ito Ward-1, Balangir C/O Samaleswari Multispeciality Hospital, At: Satyanarayan Pada, Sambalpur Road, Balangir. Pan No. :Akdpp 3517 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri C.Parida, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 23.12.2022, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.Sambalpur/10112/2017-18, For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Ao Has Made Additions Without Considering The Relevant Documents Like Ledger Account Etc. It Was Also Submitted That Those Documents Were Also Placed Before The Ld. Cit(A), However, The Ld. Cit(A) Without Considering The Same, Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee. It Was, Thus, Submitted That The Matter May Be Restored To The File Of Ld. Ao To Decide The Issue Afresh Enabling The Assessee To File The Relevant Documents To Substantiate Her Claim Before The Ld. Ao.

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

Section 133A

interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of ld. AO for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court

Sri Praskash Kumar Panda, Bhadrak vs. ITO Bhadrak Ward, Bhadrak

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

ITA 145/CTK/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18 18 Shri Prakash Kumar Panda, Shri Prakash Kumar Panda, Vs. Ito, Bhadrak Ito, Bhadrak At: Bankasahi, Bhadrak At: Bankasahi, Bhadrak Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Ahtpp 0990L (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 27 /0 06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 27 /0 /06/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

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

restore the matter to his file who shall decide the same afresh and according to law after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assesseee 4. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court

Tribal Health Collaborative Foundation, New Delhi vs. CIT Exemption, New Delhi

ITA 869/DEL/2023[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2023

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Shah Singh, Sr. DR

Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 8

appeal before this Tribunal. 4. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity of being heard and further he reiterated the submissions made in the application, which is reproduced as under for the sake of clarity: “A. Facts

Palm Tracom LLP, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 38(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1944/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M. Gargpalm Tracom Llp, Vs. Ito, Shop 103, Ff, Deepali Ward-38(1), Chowk, Csc-Ii, Up Samaj, New Delhi Pitampura, New Delhi- 110034 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaqfp8495G Assessee By : Ms. Rano Jain, Adv Revenue By: Shri Sumes Swani, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27/06/2023

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sumes Swani, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

case, Id CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in passing the order without giving assessee a fair and adequate opportunity of being heard. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the initiation of the proceedings under Section 147, read with Section 148, made