“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

Cea Consultants Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Noida

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

ITA 1705/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 153DSection 251(1)Section 68

files of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal afresh after affording a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose. 9. Decision announced in the open court on 30.05.2023. [ANUBHAV

Dominic Savio Dasilva, Usa vs. CIT, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1403/DEL/2021[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 69A

have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. Before us, it is the say of the assessee that without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the first appellate authority has dismissed the appeal by an ex parte order, that too, without condoning the delay. Therefore ... learned Departmental Representative submitted, the matter can be restored back to the first appellate authority to decide the appeal after granting opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. Having considered rival submission, we find that there was delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority. The assessee

Rathi Bandhus Nirman Pvt. Ltd., Jagdalpur, Bastar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Jagdalpur, Bastar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 131/RPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.131/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Rathi Bandhus Nirman Pvt. Ltd. Jagdalpur, Baster (C.G.) Pan : Aaecr9010N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-Jagdalpur. ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Durga Prasad Mohanty, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

restore the matter to his file for disposing off the same on merits. Needless to say, the CIT(Appeals) shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in the course of the de novo appellate proceedings. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are disposed

Raju Devi Saini, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 4(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed ‘’

ITA 411/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 May 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri C.L. Yadav, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 148Section 69C

more chance should be given to the assessee to contest/ argue her case before the ld. CIT(A) who will provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee by taking into consideration the submissions made hereinabove through grounds of appeal and additional grounds of appeal. Thus the appeal ... assessee of the assessee is restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide it afresh after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Assessee is also directed to not to seek 6 SMT. RAJU DEVI SAINI, VS ITO, WARD 4(2), JAIPUR adjournment

Fakhri Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.Ustee Company Ltd As Trustee for Fccb Issued by Jindal Saw Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A), Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Appellant stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 785/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryfakhri Co-Operative Versus Commissioner Of Housing Society Ltd. Income Tax 422, Matharpakhadi Road, (Appeals) Mazgaon, Nfac, Delhi. Maharashtra-400010. Pan: Aaaaf1078N Appellant Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Sh. Murtaza Quresh Ghandiali & Ms. Sabeena Darukhanawal, Ar Respondent/Department By : Ms. Mini Vinod, Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/05/2023 Order Narender Kumar Choudhry, J.M: This Assessee/Appellant Herein Has Preferred This Appeal Against The Order Dated 12.01.2023 Impugned Herein Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) / Nfac, Delhi {In Short ‘Ld. Commissioner’} U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For Ay 2013-14. Fakhri Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. 2. In This Case, The Appellant Earned Interest From Co- Operative & Other Banks & Therefore, Filed Its Return Of Income For The Ay 2013-14 On 22.08.2013 Which Was Processed By Cpc & Vide Intimation Dated 12.11.2014 Under Section 143(1) Of The Act, The Amounts Of Rs. 2,08,071/- & Rs. 50,000/- Have Not Been Considered Under Section 80P(2)(C)(Ii) & Consequently Disallowed.

For Appellant: Sh. Murtaza QureshFor Respondent: Ms. Mini Vinod, DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 249Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 80P(2)(c)

while taking into consideration all the orders passed by the CPC qua grievance raised by the Appellant, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Case is remanded accordingly. Fakhri Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the Appellant stands

Safindia Charitable Trust, Ludhiana vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ( Exemptions), Chandigarh

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

ITA 82/ASR/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 May 2023AY 2022-23

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

Section 12ASection 80G(5)

Accordingly, he prayed that the matter may be restored back to the ld. CIT(E) to adjudicate the matter afresh after granting adequate opportunity of being heard. 3. Per contra, the ld. DR has no objection to the request of the ld. AR in view of the natural justice ... adjudicate the issue of approval u/s 80G(5) of the Act. The CIT(E) is directed to grant adequate opportunity of being heard and consider the written submission filed on record, the paper book comprising of 59 pages. No doubt, the assessee shall co-operate in the fresh proceedings before

Shri Mohammad Maqbool Sofi, Budgam vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Srinagar

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

ITA 74/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 May 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 144Section 44ASection 69A

counsel for the assessee has stated that the assessment order was bad in law as the assessee has not been granted sufficient opportunity of being heard and the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) has been passed, confirming the addition of Rs.10 ... arbitrary manner. He pleaded that the assessee may be granted an adequate opportunity of being heard to represent its case before the ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits after considering its documentary evidences. 3. The Ld. DR stands by the impugned order, however, he has no objection

Smt. Satvir Kaur W/O Sh. Shinder Singh, Ferozepur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Amritsar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 102/ASR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 May 2023AY 2011-12

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

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

made afresh as per the provisions of section 263 of the l. T. Act, 1 9 6 1 after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard. 4. The case was reopened on the reasons that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 60,00,000 in her saving bank account maintained

Ankur Gupta, Haryana vs. Pr, CIT, Delhi-1, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1105/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2017-18 Ankur Gupta, P3/23, Versus Pr. Cit, Dlf Phase-2, Gurgaon. New Delhi. Pan: Aklpg5174E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54F

Assessing Officer in the meanwhile. However, still, the assessee is grossly negligent in its approach in pursuing the present appeal. Since sufficient opportunity of being heard has been extended to the assessee, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the assessee after hearing the ld. Departmental representative

Uttaranchal Estates P.Ltd, Dehradun vs. DCIT, Circle-27(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 9489/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri M. Baranwal, Anuj Garg

Section 144Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

Thus, we restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court

Vishwa Shanti Madhuban Charitable Trust, Delhi vs. CIT (Exemp.), New Delhi

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

ITA 6973/DEL/2019[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Verma

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)(vi)

restore the issue in appeal to the file of the ld. CIT (Exemption) who shall pass orders afresh after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on : 29/05/2023

DCIT, Circle- 3(1), New Delhi vs. Arihant Unitech Realty Project Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 6941/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.6940 & 6941/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 & 2014-15 बनाम Dcit Arihant Unitech Realty Project Circle 3(1) Vs. Ltd. New Delhi. Basement & Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi. Pan No. Aafca6188H अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 37(1)Section 46A

assessee. Accordingly, we restore this issue to the file of the AO for adjudication afresh in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. In respect of disallowance towards un-reconciled balances with Pavithra Construction and S.K. Sanitations is concerned we observe that ... assessee. Thus, this issue is also restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. I.T.A. Nos. 6940 & 6941/Del/2018 7. In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open

DCIT, Circle- 3(1), New Delhi vs. Arihant Unitech Realty Project Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 6940/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2023AY 2013-14

Section 37(1)Section 46A

Arun Kumar Verma, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer 1(2), Bhilai, Durg

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 80/RPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.79 & 80/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-2020 Arun Kumar Verma Plot No.152, Telgu Para, Maroda Tank, Maroda, Bhilai (C.G.) Pan : Abkpv0530H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Puja Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

deductor or the collector of its intention so to do and has allowed the assessee or the deductor or the collector a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (4) Where an amendment is made under this section, an order shall be passed in writing by the income-tax authority concerned

Arun Kumar Verma, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer 1(2), Bhilai, Durg

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 79/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 May 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Puja Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

Sai Kripa Trading, Pvt. Ltd, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 119/RPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.119/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Sai Kripa Trading Pvt. Ltd. G-11, Anupam Nagar, Behind Tv Tower, Shankar Nagar Ward, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aaics1638P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

aside his order with a direction to dispose off the same on merits. Needless to say, the CIT(Appeals) shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in the course of the de novo appellate proceedings. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are disposed

Santosh Kumar Nishad, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 108/RPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 107 & 108/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-2020 Santosh Kumar Nishad Mandhar, Mohadi, Tehsil : Dharsiwa, Raipur-493 111 (C.G.) Pan : Agfpn5475R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

Santosh Kumar Nishad, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 107/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 May 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

Maruti Clean Coal and Power Ltd., Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

ITA 91/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 91/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Maruti Clean Coal & Power Limited Ward No. 42, Building No.14, Civil Lines Near Income Tax Colony Raipur(C.G.) Pan : Aadcm4810C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1 (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri V.K.Singh, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

order passed by the AO u/s. 143(3) dated 27.12.2019, and directed him to pass a fresh assessment order after affording a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s.263 of the Act dated ... interest of the revenue, thus set aside his order with a direction to him to examine the aforesaid issue after affording a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 9. It is the claim of the Ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‘AR’) for the assessee, that

Vandana Rolling Mills Ltd, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

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

ITA 72/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.72/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Vandana Rolling Mills Ltd. Vandana Building, M.G. Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aaacv7614A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CA

Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

aside the assessment order with a direction to the A.O to pass a fresh assessment order after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. Aggrieved the assessee has assailed the order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s.263 of the Act dated 08.03.2022 before