← 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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in the case of Fashionara

ITA 7663/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Shri DeepeshFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT, DR
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

Fashionara Apparels (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in the case of Fashionara

ITA 7662/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Shri DeepeshFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT, DR
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

Fashionara Apparels (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in the case of Fashionara

ITA 7661/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Shri DeepeshFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT, DR
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

Sunil Kumar Shukla, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-46(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 2409/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: N o n e

merits. Thus, this appeal is restored to the file of the ld. CIT (Appeals) for de novo adjudication on merits 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

Shri Jain Shwetamber Murtipujak Sangh, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 16/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 15 & 16/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Shri Jain Shwetamber Murtipujak Sangh C/O. Santosh Parekh, Near Hanuman Mandir, Near Itwari Bazar, Dhamtari, Chhatisgarh-493 773 Pan : Aahas5883K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Ward-1, Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: S/Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

expenditure account, i.e. to the extent the same are allowable under the Act. Needless to say, the A.O shall grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in the course of set-aside proceedings. 16. In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No.15/RPR/2022 for A.Y.2016-17

Shri Jain Shwetamber Murtipujak Sangh, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption, Ward-1, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 15/RPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 15 & 16/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Shri Jain Shwetamber Murtipujak Sangh C/O. Santosh Parekh, Near Hanuman Mandir, Near Itwari Bazar, Dhamtari, Chhatisgarh-493 773 Pan : Aahas5883K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Ward-1, Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: S/Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

expenditure account, i.e. to the extent the same are allowable under the Act. Needless to say, the A.O shall grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in the course of set-aside proceedings. 16. In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No.15/RPR/2022 for A.Y.2016-17

The ITO -1(4), Indore vs. Smt Rakhi Gautam, Indore

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for

ITA 48/IND/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Indore22 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanismt. Rakhi Gautam Ito- 1(4), Aayakar Cm-626, 2Nd Floor, Bhawan Sukhliya, Indore, M.P. Vs. Indore, Madhya Pradesh Pin-452001 (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaaji0159C Assesseeby Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Acit-Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.05.2023

Section 147

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in deciding the appeal ex- parte without giving proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant. (2) That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding

M/S. Shhlok Triton Associates, Surat vs. Pr. CIT-1, Surat

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

ITA 220/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.220/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Court Hearing) M/S Shhlok Triton Principal Commissioner Of Income- Tax-1, Surat, Room No.123, 1St Floor, Associates, F.P.No.388, Vs. Paikee Udhna Darwaja, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Ring Road, Surat-395002 Surat-395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclfs 6819 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Rasesh Shah, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By: Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-D.R

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

PCIT, states as follows: “…..Accordingly, vide show cause notice dated 14.03.2019, the assessee firm was provided an opportunity of being heard & to offer explanation, if any, as well as to adduce evidence, if any, against the proposal of revision u/s. 263 of the Act. A complete detail of the facts ... necessary order may be passed in time and as per the provisions of law. The Assessing Officer concerned is directed to give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before finalizing the assessment proceedings.” 12. From the above findings of ld PCIT in his 263 order, it is vivid

Right Tight Fastners Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT-11(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 684/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115JSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

During the course of hearing, the Ld.AR presented arguments to submit that the CIT(A) passed an exparte order without giving an opportunity of being heard which is against the principles of natural justice. The Ld.AR also presented arguments to submit that the assessee was under a bona fide believe

Smita Yogesh Parekh, Mumbai vs. ITO 34(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 654/MUM/2023[9820254442]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2023

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Smita Yogesh Parekh, Ito, 405 B Wingh, Kamal Kunj, Ward-34(3)(2), Subhash Road, Villege Parle Vs. Mumbai (East), Mumbai, Maharashtra, 400057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaqpp3494H

For Appellant: Shri A. N. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Jogendra Singh, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 23(3)Section 250Section 25OSection 50C

issue as to claiming loss of the property by the assessee situated at Vasai. Needless to say that AO shall provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 11. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court

Colin Mario Rebello, Mumbai vs. ITO., Ward-23(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 423/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2021-22 Colin Mario Rebello, Ito, 501-502, Building-1, Ward-23(1)(1), Joanna Co-Operative Mumbai Vs. Society Ltd, Manuel Gonsalves Road, Bandra West, Mumbai-400050 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaar5626F

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Punjabi, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Ram Prakash Rastogi, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 234A

government. 4. The learned Assessing Officer erred in charging excess interest of Rs. 1,15,930 under section 234A without giving me an opportunity of being heard which is a mandatory requirement as per settled law for any non compensatory interest to be charged. 5. I am a senior citizen

Smt Dakuben Saremalji Sancheti Nadol Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: PendingITAT Mumbai19 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Smt. Dakuben Saremalji Sancheti Nadol Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2) 6Th Floor, Mtnl Building Charitable Trust C/O. G.P. Mehta & Co. Cas Pedder Road, Mumbai-400 026 Vs. 807, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021

For Appellant: Shri G. P. MehtaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 272A(1)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 273BSection 274

utility was said to lack sufficient manpower and resources. As per the submission of the ld. AR, the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity of being heard before the lower authorities and consequently penalty amounting to Rs.10,000/- was levied u/s. 272A(1)(d) of the Act. It is observed

Jat Kalyan Sabha, Gurugram vs. CIT (Exemptions), Chandigarh

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 728/DEL/2023[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2023

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey

Section 12ASection 80G

order rejecting assessee’s applications seeking registration under section 12A and approval under section 80G of the Act without affording any reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is the say of learned Authorized Representative of the assessee, not even a single notice of hearing was communicated ... submissions and perused the impugned orders of learned CIT (Exemption), we are of the view that before rejection of assessee’s applications, proper opportunity of being heard has not been extended to the assessee. Since, the impugned order suffers from violation of Rules of Natural Justice, we are inclined

Jat Kalyan Sabha, Gurugram vs. CIT (Exemptions), Chandigarh

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 359/DEL/2023[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2023

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey

Section 12ASection 80G

order rejecting assessee’s applications seeking registration under section 12A and approval under section 80G of the Act without affording any reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is the say of learned Authorized Representative of the assessee, not even a single notice of hearing was communicated ... submissions and perused the impugned orders of learned CIT (Exemption), we are of the view that before rejection of assessee’s applications, proper opportunity of being heard has not been extended to the assessee. Since, the impugned order suffers from violation of Rules of Natural Justice, we are inclined

Jsr Financial Services Private Limited, Faridabad vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Faridabad

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

ITA 490/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2012-13 Jsr Financial Services Private Limited, Vs Acit, House No.2221, Housing Board Colony, Circle-1, Near Tagore Public School, Faridabad. Ballabgarh, Sector-3, Faridabad, Haryana – 121 001. Pan: Aaccj6188M

For Appellant: Ms Mansi Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 68

referred to as ‘ld. AO’). 2. The main crux of the grounds raised by the assessee could be summarized as under:- i) Proper opportunity of being heard not given to the assessee both by the AO as well as by the CIT(A); ii) Challenging the validity of reopening

Vishal Nagpal, Saharanpur vs. Pr.CIT, Muzaffarnagar

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3790/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263

fully considered the submissions of the appellants. 5. The order under section 263 has been made by the Ld. Pr.CIT without proper opportunity of being heard being afforded to the appellant. 6. The appellant craves for leave to add, amend, modify or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal

Ramesh Nagpal, Saharanpur vs. Pr.CIT, Muzaffarnagar

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3789/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 263

fully considered the submissions of the appellants. 5. The order under section 263 has been made by the Ld. Pr.CIT without proper opportunity of being heard being afforded to the appellant. 6. The appellant craves for leave to add, amend, modify or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal

M/S. Immense Packaging Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Circle-12(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 678/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 678/Mum/2023 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Varun Sharma, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. P. Ahuja, Ld. DR
Section 250Section 68

case. Consequently, the case is remanded back to the file of Ld. AO for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. We also direct the Appellant to cooperate with the assessment proceedings and to appear and file the relevant documents including filed

Atos International, Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T. (International Taxation) Range 1(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7109/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)

duly considering the additional evidences filed before us and also any other evidences that may be filed before him. After affording adequate opportunity of being heard, the Assessing Officer may take appropriate decision in accordance with law. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated

Sis Prosegur Holdings Pvt Ltd, Patna vs. Pr.CIT-1, Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 47/PAT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.47/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sis Prosegur Holdings Pvt. Ltd...…………....….........…..........….…… Appellant Annapoorna Bhawan, Patliputra Telephone Exchange, Kurji, Patna, Bihar-800010 [Pan: Aaucs7524A] Vs. Pcit-1, Patna..................................…………........….....…...…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Nageswar Rao, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 18, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 25.03.2021 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pcit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Ld. Pcit While Examining Assessment Records Found That The Assessee During The Year Had Issued 900000 Equity Shares Of Rs.10/- At A Premium Of Rs.90/- Per Share Totalling Rs.100/- Per Share. The Ld. Pcit Further Observed As Under: It Is To Be Noted That, During The Year Under Consideration, The Provisions Of Section 56(2)(Viib) Were Applicable As Per Which If Aggregate Consideration For Issuance Of Shares Is More Than Fair Market

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

shares as per DCF method and finalise assessment in accordance with the provisions of law. 11. The AO shall afford proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing the appropriate order in order to meet the equity and ends of justice. 4. Being aggrieved