← 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

Grameen Impact Investment India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. National -E Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2375/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Grameen Impact Investments India National-E-Assessment Pvt. Ltd., Centre, 306, 3Rd Floor, A Wing, Devroop Vs. New Delhi-110 001. Building, 36, Turner Road, Bandra West, Mumbai-400050. Pan No. Aaacr 9005 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. K. Shivaram & Mr. Shashi Bekal, Ars : Revenue By Mr. Satyapal Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/12/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 Grameen Impact Investments India Dy. Cit-13(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 229, Aayakar 306, 3Rd Floor, A Wing, Devroop Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Building, 36, Turner Road, Bandra Mumbai-400050. West, Mumbai-400050. Pan No. Aaacr 9005 R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. K. Shivaram & Mr. Shashi
Section 56

2640/M/2022 erred in passing an ex erred in passing an ex-parte order without giving the parte order without giving the Appellant an opportunity of being heard which is in Appellant an opportunity of being heard which is in Appellant an opportunity of being heard which is in violation ... after providing adequate deciding afresh and pass a reasoned order after providing adequate deciding afresh and pass a reasoned order after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed In the result, all the three appeals

Shri Rajesh Ramchandra Dake, Panvel vs. Dy CIT CC-1, Mumbai

ITA 2/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 02 & 04/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2012-13) Dcit, Cen. Cir-1, Shri Rajesh 6Th Floor, R. No. 10, A- Ramchandra Dake, बनाम/ B/2, Usha Prabha Chs, Wing, Ashar It Park, Ram Ganesh Gadkari Raoda No. 16-Z, Wagle Vs. Indl. Estate Marg, Prabhu Ali, Thane-400 604 Panvel – 410206, स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Afqpd1100D (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay V. Deshmukh, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 28.12.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 28.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Consolidated Order Of Even Date 19.09.2019, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-11, Pune In Relation To Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) For Ay 2010-11 & 2012-13. 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay V
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

mind by the ITO or the socalled ambiguous wording in the notice impaired or prejudiced the right of the assessee to reasonable opportunity of being heard. After all, s. 274 or any other provision in the Act or the Rules, does not either mandate the giving of notice

M/S. M K Chandan Broking Limited (Formerly Known As Rtg Share Broking Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ITO 13(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1172/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1172/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Cit(A) – 21, M/S Mk Chandan Broking Ltd Mittal Court, (Formerly Known As M/S Rtg Nariman Point, Share Broking Ltd.) बिधम/ Churchgate, 3, Gadiya House, Chappel Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 021 Near-Jeff Ca. Off Hill Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai-400 050 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadcr9629L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / : Respondent) Shri Bimlendu Bhushan, Ld. Ar अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ashish Kumar, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 28.12.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 28.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 28.11.2019, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-21, Mumbai For The Quantum Appeal Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) For Ay 2014-15. 2

For Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)

Broking Ltd 2. The assessee is mainly aggrieved by ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT (A) without giving any reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee and not deciding the appeals on merits. 3. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that that during ... ground that assessee could not comply with the notices and consequently concluded the assessee’s proceedings ex-parte without offering sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He further submitted that Ld. CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without adjudication on merits, therefore he requested that