← 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

Madhu Kumar Patel, Hyderabad vs. ADIT, (Int. Taxn)-2, Hyderabad

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

ITA 395/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2015-16 Shri Madhu Kumar Patel Vs. A.D.I.T (Intl.Taxation)-2 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Bvdpp3797G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 26/12/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.7.2022 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T. Act For The A.Y 2015-16. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & A Resident Of The U.K. He Filed His Return Of Income On 31.08.2015 Declaring Total Income At Rs.2,91,07,000/- As Income From Long Term Capital Gain.

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)

same should be deleted from A.Y 2015-16. We hold and direct accordingly. Needless to say, the Assessing Officer shall give due opportunity of being heard to the assessee while deciding the issue. The first issue raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal ... deduction already allowed u/s 54F in A.Y 2012-13. Needless to say, that the Assessing Officer while verifying the record shall give due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue as per fact and law. We hold and direct accordingly. Grounds of appeal

Supermax Personal Care Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(4), Mumbai

In the result assessment order dated 30

ITA 2142/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 2142/मुं/ 2021 (िन.व. 2015-16) M/S. Supermax Personal Care Pvt. Ltd. Wagle Estate P.O., Lbs Marg Thane 400604 Pan: Aaocs7144Q ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax - 3(4) World Trade Centre, 29Th Floor ..... "ितवाद"/Respondent Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400005 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Nishant Thakkar & Shri Hiten Chande "ितवाद" "ारा/Respondent By : Shri Vinod Tanwani सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 04.10.2022 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 26.12.2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 30.09.2021 Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’], For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Shri Nishant Thakkar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submits At The Outset That He Would Be Making Submissions Only On The Jurisdictional Issue

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(12)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148

conformity with the directions, complete, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 153 or section 153B, the assessment without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee, within one month from the end of the month in which such direction is received. 7. A bare perusal

Rekha Raghunath Erande, Mumbai vs. Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2593/MUM/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2593/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Rekha Raghunath Erande बिधम/ Ward-19(3)(1) 7, Room No-6, 2Nd Floor, 1St Floor, Matru Mandir, Vs. Khubchand Masion, Tardeo Road, Mumbai- Takwadi, Kalbadevi Road, 400007. Kalbadevi-400002. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpe4706E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Simoni Chauhan Revenue By: Shri Vaibhav Jain सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee An Individual Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac. Delhi Dated 05.08.2022 For Ay 2011-12. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac In Not Considering The Grounds Raised By The Assessee That She Did Not Get Proper Opportunity During The Assessment Proceedings I.E Before The Ao.

For Appellant: Ms. Simoni ChauhanFor Respondent: Shri Vaibhav Jain
Section 144

authority, that reads thus : "We will straightway agree with the assessee's submission that the ITO had not given to the assessee proper opportunity of being heard." That the assessee could have placed evidence before the first appellate authority or before the Tribunal is really of no consequence ... aside the order of assessment and remand the matter to the assessing authority for fresh assessment after giving to the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard. 2. Two questions were placed before the High Court, of which the second question is not pressed. The first question reads thus