← 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Raipur vs. Mesers Tirupati Balaji Food Private Limited, Tilda

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 13/RPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.202/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Tirupati Balaji Foods Pvt. Ltd., Tilda-Neora, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aacct7476L ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.13/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Tirupati Balaji Foods Pvt. Ltd., Tilda-Neora, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aacct7476L ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT- DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 69C

restrict the addition to the said extent. Needless to say, the A.O shall in the course of set-aside proceedings afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 20. In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No.202/RPR/2018 for A.Y.2014-15 is allowed for statistical purposes in terms ... restrict the addition to the said extent. Needless to say, the A.O shall in the course of set-aside proceedings afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 23. In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No.13/RPR/2019 for A.Y.2015-16 is allowed for statistical purposes in terms

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Raipur vs. Mesers Tirupati Balaji Food Private Limited, Tilda

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 202/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.202/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Tirupati Balaji Foods Pvt. Ltd., Tilda-Neora, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aacct7476L ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.13/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Tirupati Balaji Foods Pvt. Ltd., Tilda-Neora, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aacct7476L ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT- DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 69C

restrict the addition to the said extent. Needless to say, the A.O shall in the course of set-aside proceedings afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 20. In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No.202/RPR/2018 for A.Y.2014-15 is allowed for statistical purposes in terms ... restrict the addition to the said extent. Needless to say, the A.O shall in the course of set-aside proceedings afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 23. In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No.13/RPR/2019 for A.Y.2015-16 is allowed for statistical purposes in terms

Devdeep Textiles, Jetpur vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 31/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 31/Rjt/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Devdeep Textiles The Principal बनाम/ Dhoraji Road, Nr. Railway Commissioner Of Income Vs. Fatak, Jetpur, Gujarat - Tax -1 360370 Rajkot-360001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahfd7020N .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Rushit Sheth, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 17/04/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 20/04/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.02.2022 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As To ‘The Act’) By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rajkot-1 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Pcit’), Arising Out Of The Order

For Appellant: Shri Rushit Sheth, A.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

aside the issue to the file of the Ld. AO for assessment afresh after conducting necessary verification and enquiries and upon providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. ITA No. 31/Rjt/2022 (Devdeep Textiles vs. Pr.CIT) A. Y. 2017-18 - 3- 4. At the very threshold of the matter

Vishnu Pareek, Jaipur vs. CIT(A), Jaipur

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

ITA 292/JPR/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt Chanchal Meena (Addl. CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

remand back the matter to the record of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding the appeal afresh on merits after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to co-operate with the ld. CIT(A) in deciding the appeal on merits and without

Omni Active Health Technologies Limited, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/Asst/CIT/ITO/NFAC, Delhi

ITA 748/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2023AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 14ASection 35Section 5Section 92C

rule and in sub- section (2AB) being fulfilled, pass an order in writing in form No.3CM. The proviso however lays down that reasonable opportunity of being heard is to be granted to the company before rejecting an application. So, the application has to be made under sub-rule

Pravash Narayan Mallick, Chhatia vs. ITO, Jajpur Ward, Jajpur

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

ITA 128/CTK/2022[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack19 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialassessment Year : 2014-15 Pravash Narayan Pravash Narayan Mallick, At: Vs. Ito, Jajpur Ward, Ito, Jajpur Ward, Gopapurchhak, Gopapurchhak, Chhatia, Chhatia, Jajpur Barchana, Dist: Jajpur Barchana, Dist: Jajpur Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Ajupm 4029 J (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena, Adv Sandeep Kumar Jena, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 19 /0 04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/0 /04/2023 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR

Assessment Year : 2014-15 the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 19/04/2023. (George Mathan) JUDICIAL MEMBER

Neha Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-36(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 445/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

inclined to restore the issues to the file of the first appellate authority for adjudicating on merits after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

Tpf Getinsa Eurostudios S.L, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle International Taxation, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on all the grounds is allowed

ITA 2400/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 2400/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Tpf Getinsa Euroestudios S.L., Vs Acit, Unit-305, Suncity Business International Taxation, Tower, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon, Sector-54, Gurgaon-122002 Haryana-122002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecg9819Q

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Anshuman Pattnaik, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

grossly erred on facts and in law in making the disallowance of Rs. 6,51,57,000/- without providing an opportunity of being heard as directed by the Ld. DRP. Without Prejudice 6. The Ld. AO grossly erred on facts and in law in making the disallowance ... without considering the reply filed by the appellant on 30-08- 2022 even though no opportunity of being heard was provided to the appellant. 7. The Ld. AO grossly erred on facts and in law in making the disallowance of Rs.2,01,34,000/- (included in the above stated disallowance

Prakashwati Educational Society, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1639/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: The Ld. Cit (A). The Ld. Cit (A) Noted That Assessee Has Filed

For Appellant: Ms. Gunjan Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. DR

delay be condoned by the ld. CIT (A) and ld. CIT (A) decide the appeal on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 19th

Rajendra Management Group, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-62(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1614/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: The Cit(A).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234Section 234ASection 234CSection 36(1)(va)

facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred by rejecting Appeal filled by Assessee without affording an opportunity of being heard and by denying to the assessee the "Principal of natural Justice". 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned

ITO Ward - 2(5), Noida vs. Vidya Sagar Tyagi, New Delhi

In the result, the captioned appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1184/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2009-10 Ito Vidhyasagar Tyagi Ward- 2 (5) Vs K-1/25, Lgf, Noida Chitranjan Park, New Delhi Pan No.Acopt7099J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 268ASection 268A(1)

respective jurisdictional CIT(A)-1 and 2 Noida and CIT(A) Ghaziabad to decide afresh in accordance with law by providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee / revenue. Consequently aforesaid appeals / cross objections are allowed for statistical purposes. 4. On finding parity in the dispute, respectfully following ... files of the CIT(A) having jurisdiction over the captioned assessee and decide the issue afresh expediously after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. In the result, the captioned appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. 6. Decision announced in the open court in the presence

Amtech Engineers, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 62(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 9553/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 147Section 148Section 4Section 40

context that the respective payees have offered the corresponding income to tax. 16. Needless to mention, the Assessing Officer must afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before deciding the issue. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes. 17. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Coronation Infrastructure P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 6(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 6666/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2023AY 2015-16
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 43B

this appeal and on the touchstone of the aforesaid jurisdictional High Court decision accordingly. Needless to add, assessee should be granted adequate opportunity of being heard. 5. Similar direction was issued by this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2016-17 also in ITA Nos. 660 & 757/Del/2020 order

Sanjay Gupta, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle- 59(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4916/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt Diva Singhdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rajat Jain, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Nitin Kumar Jaiman, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in passing the order without affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 2 Sanjay Gupta 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both

M/S Jay Ambica Exim, Gandhidham vs. Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cen. Cir.-2, Rajkot

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

ITA 57/RJT/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh S. Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. That, the learned CIT (A) has wrongly passed the order without giving proper opportunity of being heard. A.Y. 2011-12 2 2. That, the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the addition amounting

Khidmat Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption 1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 360/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blekhidmat Charitable Trust V. Acit (E)- 1(1) P.T. Mane Udyan Garden Mtnl Mirza Galib Marg, Opp. Rolex Hotel Cumballa Hill Tel Exchange Building G.D. Deshmukh Lane, Tardeo Clare Road, Nagpada Junction Mumbai- 400026 Mumbai- 400008 Pan: Aaatk7563N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Jayesh Chugh Department Represented By : Shri S N Kabra

Section 115BSection 12ASection 143(2)

Trust made by the Assessing Officer, in the interest of justice I am of the opinion that assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard. Thus, this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication in accordance with law. Assessee is directed

Gopalbhai Bachubhai Senjalia, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 3(2), Kalyan

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

ITA 349/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blegopalbhai Bachubhai Senjalia V. Ito, Ward 3(2) 102, Tulsi Dhara, Gokul Nagar 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion Khadak Pada, Kalyan (W) Murbad Road, Kalyan (W) Thane- 421301 Thane- 421301 Pan: Actps3399H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)(ii)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

additions/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, in the interest of justice I am of the opinion that assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard. Thus, this appeal is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication in accordance with law. The assessee may file ... Needless to say that the assessee shall cooperate with the assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer shall provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 9. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court

D B Skills Foundation, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai

ITA 3032/MUM/2022[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2023AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra, D.R
Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25

these circumstances the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(E) is set aside and remitted back to decide afresh after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee by the Ld. CIT(E). 5 M/s. D.B. Skills Foundation 8. Resultantly the appeal filed by the applicant is hereby allowed

Kamal Kishore Rathi, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4 (3), Mumbai

ITA 7758/MUM/2019[20110-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2023

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta, D.R
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147

matter back to the AO to make fresh assessment after examining the additional evidence brought on record by the assessee by providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee and by allowing the cross examination of Mukesh Chokshi. 4. Thereafter in accordance with the directions issued by the Tribunal ... page 3 to 10 of the paper book are required to be examined by the AO and decide the issue afresh after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 13. So far as question of disallowance of salary of Rs.10,50,000/- claimed to have been paid

ITO, Ward-1(4), Ghaziabad vs. Manju Gupta, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 6821/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2015-16 Ito Rakesh Gupta( Huf) Ward -2 (2) Vs Iii-J-58, Nehru Nagar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad U.P. 201001 Pan No. Aaohr9383R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit Mudit Kumar House No.31, Circle – 1, Ghaziabad Vs Patel Nagar-Iii, Ghaziabad Pan No.Agfpk3998N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ito Manju Gupta, Ward -1 (4) Vs J-58, Nehru Nagar-Iii, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad U.P 201001 Pan No. Baqpg4864B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 68Section 69C

respective jurisdictional CIT(A)-1 and 2 Noida and CIT(A) Ghaziabad to decide afresh in accordance with law by providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee / revenue. Consequently aforesaid appeals / cross objections are allowed for statistical purposes. 5. On finding parity in the dispute, respectfully following ... files of the CIT(A) having jurisdiction over the captioned assessee’s and decide the issue afresh expediously after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, the captioned appeals are allowed for statistical purpose. 7. Decision announced in the open court