“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

JCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Indian Iron Steel Co. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for

ITA 3995/DEL/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

No.3995/Del./2016 remit the issue to the AO. AO is directed to consider the issue afresh after giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard. 9. In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this

M/S Cobra Kcl Jv, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Asstt. Commr. of Income Tax, TDS- Circle, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 209/RJT/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143Section 220Section 221Section 221(1)

total amount of penalty does not exceed the amount of tax in arrears. In the present case, the Assessing Officer has given reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee but the same was not availed by the assessee during the finalisation of penalty proceedings under Section ... payable when in default as per Section 221 of the Act is mandatory and cannot be escaped once the assessee was given reasonable opportunity of being heard and also that when the assessee has not proved this to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer or the Revenue Authorities that

Chartered Accountants Association, Jalandhar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ( Exemptions), Chandigarh

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee’s are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 106/ASR/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Jun 2023AY 2023-24

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

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hitendra Bhauraoji Ninawe, CIT DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

16/01/2023 passed by the Ld. CIT(E), Chandgiarh challenging therein rejection of application for Registration under 12AB of the Act without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. I.T.A. No. 105/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2023-24 I.T.A. No. 106/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2023-24 2 2. During the course ... rejected the application of the assessee filed under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act without granting sufficient opportunity of being heard and passed order in summary manner without adjudicating the issue on merits of the case. 3.1 The Counsel further submitted that the Ld. CIT(E) merely stated

Gst & Taxation Bar, Jalandhar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ( Exemptions), Chandigarh

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee’s are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 105/ASR/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Jun 2023AY 2023-24

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

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hitendra Bhauraoji Ninawe, CIT DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

Late Shri Ashok Kumar Goel Leagial Heir Shri Sahil Goel, Hoshiarpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4, Hoshiarpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 29/ASR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.29/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 127Section 144Section 144rSection 250o

NFAC erred in confirming additions without peeping deep into the facts and categorically ignored the ratio of decisions falling in line with extending opportunity of being heard. I.T.A. No.29/Asr/2022 3 Assessment Year: 2012-13 S. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the NFAC erred

The Happy Child Educational Society, Karnal vs. CIT(E), Chandigarh

The appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 9630/DEL/2019[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2023

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Sh. N. K. Billaiyaassessment Year: -- The Happy Child Cit(E) Educational Society Vs Chandigarh 1, Punjab Colony, Indri Karnal, Karnal Pan No.Aaatt9773B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 12A

left with no choice but to reject the application. 5. We are of the considered view that the assessee should get one more opportunity of being heard so that it can justify its claim of registration u/s.12AA of the Act. 6. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play

Karamveer Singh, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward-1(3), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 6088/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2009-10] Karamveer Singh, Vs Ito, D-28, South Extension Part-1, Ward-1(3), New Delhi-110049. Ghaziabad. Pan-Aonps8861C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Somil Aggarwal, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15.06.2023

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 69

treating it as alleged unexplained investment in property u/s 69 and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and without providing opportunity of being heard and in violation of principles of natural justice. 5. That in any case and in view of the matter, action

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhaprtnam vs. Fluentgrid Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 62/VIZ/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

scrutiny under CASS and notice U/s. 143(2) was issued and served on the assessee. Due to change in the incumbency, a fresh opportunity of being heard was accorded to the assessee vide letter dated 06/08/2019. Subsequently, notice U/s. 142(1) was issued on 30/08/2019 along with the detailed questionnaire

Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Co. Ltd., Raipur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 24/RPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.16/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. O/O. Executive Director-Finance Ground Floor, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5772F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.24/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. Ground Floor, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5772F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32

deduction of repair and maintenance expenses. Needless to say, the A.O in the course of set-aside proceedings shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee company which shall remain at a liberty to substantiate its claim on the basis of fresh documentary evidence. Thus, the Ground

Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India Chhattisgarh, Raipur vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Exemption, Bhopal

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

ITA 47/RPR/2020[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.47/Rpr/2020 The Confederation Of Real Estate Vs Cit Exemption, Developers Association Of India Bhopal Chhattisgarh Pan No. :Aahat 8139 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ravi Agarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S. K. Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 14/06/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Bhopal, Dated 31.12.2019. In This Appeal Following Grounds Are Raised:- “1. That, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit Grossly Erred To Deny Registration To The Appellant U/S 12Aa. 2. That Other Ground Shall Be Pressed At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Meena, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 2(15)

registration U/s 12AA as per provisions of the Act, considering all the available material evidence, information, facts and circumstances of the matter. Reasonable opportunity of being heard shall be granted to the assessee to represent its case. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

The Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited, Raipur, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax 1(2), Raipur, Raipur (Cg)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 16/BIL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32

Gordhanbhai Babubhai Dhaduk, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(3)(1), Surat

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

ITA 243/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Surat15 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.243/Srt/2023 (Ay 2016-17) (Hearing In Physical Court) Gordhanbhau Babubhai Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(3)(1), Surat, Aayakar Dhaduk, 16, Dharmajivan Vs Bhavan, Nr. Majura Gate, Society, Opp. New Opp. New Civil Hospital, Chaupaty, Varachha Road, Surat-395001 Surat-395006 Pan No. Aaupd 7509 H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 254(1)

Representative (Ld. AR) for the assessee submits that NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) passed ex Gordhanbhau B Dhaduk parte order without giving fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee. Further, NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the appeal on merit as per mandate of Section ... merit in accordance with law. Needless to say before passing the order direct the NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) be grant fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to be more vigilant and not to seek adjournment with proper reason

Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3, Na vs. Arivs.Shri Lallubhai Morarbhai Patel, Navsari

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

ITA 122/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Surat15 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.122/Srt/2023 (Ay 2016-17) (Hearing In Physical Court) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shri Lallubhai Morabhai Patel, Laxmi Trading Co. 3, Navsari, Room No.206, Vs Naher Chokdi, At & P.O 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Rumla, Navsari-396060 Charpool, Navsari-396445 Pan No.Aazpp 9895 R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 254(1)Section 44A

pass order in accordance with law. Needless to direct that NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) before 5 Bharatbhai M Baldha passing the order shall grant opportunity of being heard to assessee and assessee is also directed to provide complete details about cash deposits in bank account including details of Shri Laxmi Traders

Gopal Singh S/O Devi Singh, Baran vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Baran

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

ITA 252/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

reopening the assessment u/s 147 by issuing notice u/s 148 and has erred in passing ex-parte order u/s 144 without giving proper opportunity of being heard. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income

Leela Devi Jain, Tonk vs. ITO, Ward- Tonk, Tonk

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

ITA 218/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Muzaffar Iqbal (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

heard who has relied on the findings of the lower authorities and more particularly submitted that the assessee was given sufficient opportunity of being heard by the ld. CIT(A) and the assessee has not submitted the arguments on merits. The ld. DR also submitted that if the matter

Shri Ramchandra Dhopeshwarkar, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward 2(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 913/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Ramchandra Vs. International Tax Dhopeshwarkar, 404/11J Ward 2(1)(1) Neelam Nagar Chs, Room No. 1724, 17Th Phase Ii, Gavan Pada, Floor, Air India Building, Mulund (E), Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400081 Mumbai - 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Afrpd9868F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Soumendu Kumar Das Date Of Hearing 08.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.06.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-56, Mumbai, Dated 15.01.2023 For A.Y. 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-56, Mumbai, Is Bad In Law On Various Grounds Apart From Being Passed In Gross Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal In Limine On The Alleged Ground Of Delay In Filing The Appeal Without Giving Any Opportunity & Without Appreciating The Fact There Is Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Factually Incorrect. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Dealing With The Grounds Of Appeal Raised Before Him Despite Receiving The Remand Report From The Ld. Ao.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Soumendu Kumar Das

Section 115BSection 144Section 148Section 69A

Shri Ramchandra Dhopeshwarkar Vs. Interntional Tax, Ward 2(1)(1) CIT(A) for deciding on merit after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, this appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Silmohan Gems Pvt Ltd. Company, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-5(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee

ITA 472/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Ms. Mitali Mehta a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 40A(3)Section 69C

Mumbai (in short ‘the CIT’) called ’) called for the assessment record for the assessment records and after examination and provi examination and providing opportunity of being heard of being heard to the assessee, passed order u/s 263 of the Act dated 26.03.2018, passed order u/s 263 of the Act dated