“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

P P Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 25, New Delhi

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

ITA 6332/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usi.T.A. No. 6332/Del/2017 (A.Y 2011-12) P P Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, H-5, Netaji Subhash Place, Central Circle : 25, Pitampura, Delhi – 110 034. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacp0874G & I.T.A. No. 6529/Del/2017 (A.Y 2011-12) Acit, Vs. P P Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle : 25, H-5, Netaji Subhash Place, New Delhi. Pitampura, Delhi – 110 034. Pan No. Aaacp0874G & I.T.A. No. 6931/Del/2017 (A.Y 2013-14) P P Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, H-5, Netaji Subhash Place, Central Circle : 25, Pitampura, Delhi – 110 034. New Delhi. (Respondents) Pan No. Aaacp0874G (Appellants)

For Appellant: Shri R. R. Singla, C. AFor Respondent: Shri K. K. Mishra, Sr. D. R

Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147

novo consideration. Accordingly, we direct the ld CIT(A) to decide all the issues raised by the assessee after providing opportunity of being heard. Thus, the ground Nos. 1 and 2 are partly allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, ITA No. 6332/Del/2017 filed by the assessee ... deem it fit to remand the matter to the file of the ld CIT(A) for de-novo verification after giving the opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 12. Ordered accordingly. 13. Since we have remanded the matter to the file of the ld CIT(A), other grounds

Ajmer Development Authority, Ajmer vs. CIT(Exemption)/ ITO (Exemption), Jaipur / Jodhpur

In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 89/JODH/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur22 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

novo assessment on the issues discussed after providing proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee and making proper inquiry and arrive at a factually and legally correct finding on these issues." Thus, feeling aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal. GOA 1 to 4: Order passed u/s 263 - Invalid Submissions ... aside the issue back to the file of the ld. CIT to decide the same afresh in accordance with law by providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee expeditiously. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

M/S. P R Jangid Education Society, Jodhpur vs. PCIT/CIT, Jodhpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 67/JODH/2021[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur22 Mar 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Boradvs Pcit/Cit, M/S. P R Jangid Education Society, J-16, M/S. Mgb & Co., Llp, Jodhpur Lal Kothi Yojana, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabap0800H Assessee By Shri Sandeep Jhanwar, Ca Revenue By Shri O.P.Meena,Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 21/03/2023 Date Of 22/03/2023 Pronouncement

Section 10Section 115TSection 2Section 92F

satisfied, pass an order in writing rejecting such application and also cancelling its approval after affording it a reasonable opportunity of being heard; (iii) where the application is made under clause (iv) of the said proviso, pass an order in writing granting approval

Udaipur Sahakari Uphokta Thok Bhandar Ltd., Udaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Udaipur

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

ITA 441/JODH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur22 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad441/Jodh/2018 (Assessment Year- 2014-15) Udaipur Sahakari Upbhokta Vs The Acit Thok Bhandar Ltd. Circle-2 Ist Floor, Shastri Circle, Uddaipur Udaipur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaau 0159 K

Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(iii)

equity and justice the issue in question is restored to the file of the AO to decide it afresh by providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee is also directed to submit the papers / written submission before the AO for adjudication. Thus the appeal

Inter Globle Aviation Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-10(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2539/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Narender Kumar Choudhryinter Globle Aviation Ltd. Vs. Acit Upper Ground Floor, Circle – 10(1) Westren Wing, Thapper New Delhi House-124, Janpath, New Delhi-110001 Pan No. Aabci 2726 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. Ms. Soumya Jain, Adv. Revenue By Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 22.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.03.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.09.2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) - Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under :- Inter Globle Aviation Ltd Vs Acit 2 3. Assessee Is A Company Stated To Be Engaged In The Business Of Operation Of Airlines Under The Name & Style Of Indigo. Assessee Electronically Filed Its Return Of Income For A.Y. 2018-19 On 30.11.2018 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.18,26,11,80,910/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Thereafter Assessment Was Framed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144B Of The Act Vide Order Dated 19.04.2021 & The Total Income Was Determined At Rs.24,31,89,53,536/-.

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 271D

same assessment year] 1.3 That the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) dismissing the appeal, that too, without providing any opportunity of being heard to the appellant, is in gross violation of principles of natural justice and deserves to be set-aside/ reversed. WITHOUT PREJUDICE - ON MERITS Re: Validity ... Section 144B of the Act. 2.2 That the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessment proceedings were completed without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant, including personal/ video hearing, in gross violation of mandatory provisions of section 144B of the Act and also principles

Vessel Warehousing Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT-09, New Delhi

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4782/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(2)

order passed by the Ld. PCIT is bad in law as the Appellant was not provided with sufficient and reasonable opportunity of being heard from invoking extraordinary jurisdiction and principles of natural justice have not been followed and passing the order under section 263 of the Act in haste

Plastic Omnium Auto Inergy Manufacturing India Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

ITA 3885/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

DCIT The CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal afresh considering the merits of the quarrel after giving a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.” (B.1) At the time of hearing before us, the assessee was represented by Mr. Himanshu Garg, CA and Revenue

Plastic Omnium Auto Inergy Manufacturing India Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle-3, Gurgaon

ITA 3884/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Plastic Omnium Auto Inergy Manufacturing India Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle-2, Gurgaon

ITA 3883/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Plastic Omnium Auto Inergy Manufacturing India Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle-2, Gurgaon

ITA 3882/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Shri. Ajit Singh S/O Shri. Ram Chand, Nawanshahr vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Nawanshahr

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

ITA 109/ASR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Jatinder Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 69A

adjudicate the issue afresh as per law after considering the submission of the assessee and additional evidences, and after granting adequate opportunity of being heard. No doubt, the appellant shall cooperate in the fresh proceeding before the CIT(A). 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Rahul Shukla, Durg vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 258/RPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.258/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Rahul Shukla C/O. Rakesh Enterprises, G.E. Road, Kumhari, Durg-491 001 Pan : Dkips6951K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Nfac, Delhi ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

aforesaid observations set-aside the matter to the file of the A.O who shall re-adjudicate the same after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 10 Rahul Shukla Vs. CIT Appeal, NFAC 16. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Shri Shashikant Bhagvanjibhai Rajpara, Rajkot vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 59/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2017-18 Shashikant Bhavajjibhai Rajpara Vs. The Pr.Cit-1 409, Aadarsh Plaza, Rajkot. 150 Ft. Ring Road Rajkot. Pan : Abipr 9935 Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld.Cit(Dr) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13/03/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/03/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Ld.Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Rajkot [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld.Pr.Cit Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act" For Short) Dated 7.2.2022 Pertaining To The Asst.Year2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Appeal Are As Under: “1. The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax - Rajkot -1, Rajkot Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act, Particularly In The Light Of Reasons Stated By Him In The Show Cause Notice & In The Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Act & Hence The Impugned Order Is Bad In Law. 2. The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Rajkot - 1, Rajkot Erred In Setting Aside The Assessment Order Framed U/S 143(3)Of The Act By Holding That The Ao Has Not Properly Examined The Facts Of The Case In 2

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld.CIT(DR)

Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69C

being initiated with a view to pass a suitable order. Before passing of such order, you are hereby given an opportunity of being heard in the matter. In this connection you are requested to famish your reply / submission / explanation or objection if any by mail address id rajkot.cit1@incometax.gov.in / speed post

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Rajkot vs. M/S. J. Y. Resources Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 150/RJT/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R Senthil Kumar

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

Section 132(4)Section 147

should have make independent enquiries and give his findings. There is no mention that the CIT{A) has given these findings after allowing opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Looking to the discussion as above, the additions made by the AO amounting to Rs.2 crore are not found justified

Sheetal Kaushal, Bhopal vs. The ITO 5(2), Bhopal

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 417/IND/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI.VIJAY PAL RAO (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Nisha Lahoti, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 69

Assessment Year. 2011-12 Smt. Sheetal Kaushal 4. That the learned lower authorities were not justified in not allowing proper and meaningful opportunity of being heard. Also the Learned ClT (Appeals) National Faceless E-Appeal Centre, was also not justified in not allowing any opportunity of personal hearing through digital

Jainson Holding Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 13(2), Delhi

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

ITA 2004/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2015-16 Jainson Holding Pvt. Ltd. Ito H. No.23A, Officer 201, Vs Ward- 13(2) Kamal Tower, Vijay Chowk Delhi Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi-110092 Pan No.Aaccj3878J (Appellant) (Respondent)

files of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee is directed to attend the appellate proceedings and submit his case. 7. In the result, the appeal

Sunil Kumar Garg, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 36(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 3182/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Sabharwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR

Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 41Section 41(1)

merits of this case, as he has only relied upon the order passed by the Assessing Officer. 7. That no proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard was ever afforded by the Assessing Officer and by the Ld. CIT(A) to the appellant prior to hold the addition of Rs.1 ... cessation of trading liability u/s 41 (1) of the Act. 5. Before the ld. CIT (A), assessee submitted additional evidences & documents and wanted opportunity to be heard. However, ld. CIT (A) held that sufficient opportunity has been given to the assessee and he has not responded. So, he declined

Shri Sukhjinder Singh, Jalandhar vs. Prinicpal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 71/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR

Section 263

dated 30/03/2022 is against the facts of this case and is untenable under the law. 2. That no reasonable and proper opportunity of being heard was allowed by the Principal CIT before passing the order u/s 263 of the IT Act, 1961. As such the order passed

Navjeevan Charitable Society, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 215/ASR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sh. Gunjeet Singh Syal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR

Section 142Section 154Section 272ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 273B

special auditor, prior approval of PCIT must be taken by the AO and also the assessee has to be provided with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. As per the AR, in the present case, penalty has been levied for non- compliance of correspondences dated 06.05.2021, 25.05.2021, 11.06.2021 & 22.06.2021which ... neither prior approval of PCIT was taken nor was the assessee provided a 5 Navjeevan Charitable Society v. Dy. CIT reasonable opportunity of being heard and vide these letters time was extended to get the accounts audited. Therefore, as per the AR, penalty u/s 272A(1)(d)vide order dated

M/S Assoteoch Supertech Joint Venture, New Delhi vs. ITO, Noida

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 492/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Assotech Supertech Ito Joint, Venture, 1114, Vs Ward- I Hemkunt Chanber, 89, Noida Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan No.Aaajai382K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 271

addition was confirmed by the CIT(A). 5. Penalty proceedings u/s.271 (1)(c) of the Act were separately initiated and after affording an opportunity of being heard the penalty proceedings were concluded by levying of Rs. 31 lacs. 6. The levy of penalty was challenged before ... first verify the status of the appeal before the Tribunal and then decide the appeal afresh after giving a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee and consider the facts afresh for the levy of penalty u/s.271 (1)(c) of the Act de- hors the fate