← 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

Raghunath Jew School of Management Studies, Balasore vs. ITO (Exemption), Cuttack

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 177/CTK/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.174-177/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2009-2010 To 2012-2013) M/S Raghunath Jew School Of Vs Ito (Exemption), Cuttack Management Studies, At: Tigiria, Punjibag, Sunhat (Chandipur Road) Balasore-756002 Pan No. :Aabtr 2600 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.Panda, Senior Advocate With Shri B.R.Panda, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/01/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, All Dated 30.09.2022, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1046137372(1), Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1046137753(1), Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1046138161(1) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1046137557 (1) For The Assessment Years 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012 & 2012-2013, Respectively. 2. Shri Basudev Panda, Senior Advocate With Shri B.R.Panda, Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit- Dr With Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri B.Panda, Senior Advocate with Shri B.R.Panda, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR and Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR

issues on merits in these appeals are restored to the file of the ld. AO for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. As the assessments have been done ex-parte, the assessee shall pay cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twentyfive Thousand only) per assessment year under

Raghunath Jew School of Management Studies, Balasore vs. ITO (Exemption), Cuttack

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 176/CTK/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.174-177/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2009-2010 To 2012-2013) M/S Raghunath Jew School Of Vs Ito (Exemption), Cuttack Management Studies, At: Tigiria, Punjibag, Sunhat (Chandipur Road) Balasore-756002 Pan No. :Aabtr 2600 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.Panda, Senior Advocate With Shri B.R.Panda, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/01/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, All Dated 30.09.2022, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1046137372(1), Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1046137753(1), Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1046138161(1) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1046137557 (1) For The Assessment Years 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012 & 2012-2013, Respectively. 2. Shri Basudev Panda, Senior Advocate With Shri B.R.Panda, Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit- Dr With Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri B.Panda, Senior Advocate with Shri B.R.Panda, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR and Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR

issues on merits in these appeals are restored to the file of the ld. AO for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. As the assessments have been done ex-parte, the assessee shall pay cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twentyfive Thousand only) per assessment year under

Raghunath Jew School of Management Studies, Balasore vs. ITO (Exemption), Cuttack

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 175/CTK/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.174-177/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2009-2010 To 2012-2013) M/S Raghunath Jew School Of Vs Ito (Exemption), Cuttack Management Studies, At: Tigiria, Punjibag, Sunhat (Chandipur Road) Balasore-756002 Pan No. :Aabtr 2600 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.Panda, Senior Advocate With Shri B.R.Panda, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/01/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, All Dated 30.09.2022, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1046137372(1), Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1046137753(1), Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1046138161(1) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1046137557 (1) For The Assessment Years 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012 & 2012-2013, Respectively. 2. Shri Basudev Panda, Senior Advocate With Shri B.R.Panda, Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit- Dr With Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri B.Panda, Senior Advocate with Shri B.R.Panda, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR and Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR

issues on merits in these appeals are restored to the file of the ld. AO for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. As the assessments have been done ex-parte, the assessee shall pay cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twentyfive Thousand only) per assessment year under