← 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

Fireeye Cybersecurity Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 292/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 292/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Mandiant Cyber Security Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Fireeye The Deputy Cybersecurity Pvt. Commissioner Of Ltd.), Income Tax, No. 5, Front Wing Circle – 3(1)(1), Salarpuria Infinity, Vs. Bengaluru. 2Nd Floor, Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru – 560 029. Pan: Aaccf1341A Appellant Respondent : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Assessee By Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vilas Shinde, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Order Passed By National E- Assessment Centre, Delhi Dated 30/04/2021 On Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal:

For Respondent: Shri T. Suryanarayana

292/Bang/2021 37.58% whereas the Ld. TPO computed it at 23.55%. The TPO is directed to recalculate the RPT/sales ratio by providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. So this comparable is remitted back to the Ld. TPO to decide afresh.” “Nihilent Analytics Ltd. (Nihilent) 44. The assessee sought exclusion ... reported in (2015) 276 CTR 445 by considering a credit of 90 days. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed a reasonable opportunity of being heard in such fresh proceedings. Accordingly this ground raised by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, the appeal filed

Consolidated Marketing Co, Coimbatore vs. The ACIT, Non-Corporate Circle-2, Coimbatore

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

ITA 141/CHNY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 141/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 Consolidated Marketing Co., The Assistant Commissioner Of 189, Bashyakaralu Road East, Vs. Income Tax, R.S. Puram, Coimbatore 641 002. Non Corporate Circle 2, Coimbatore 641 002. [Pan:Aakfc5594P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Coimbatore, Dated 27.03.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2016-17 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

PCIT set aside the assessment order and directed the Assessing Officer to carry out fresh assessment in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal and the ld. Counsel

Resplenda Expressions Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 5(4), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1364/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1363 & 1364/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Resplenda Expressions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer No. 138, Luz Church Road, Corporate Ward 5(4), Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. Chennai. [Pan: Aadcr6466M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthilkumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Chennai Dated 07.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12. Both The Appeals Were Restored For The Limited Purposes Of Fresh Adjudication Of Legal Ground Vide Order In M.A. Nos. 92 & 93/Chny/2020 Dated 27.05.2022. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Itat In I.T.A. Nos. 1363 &

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthilkumaran, CIT
Section 147

validity of reopening of assessment under 4 I.T.A. Nos.1363 & 1364/Chny/18 section 147 of the Act in accordance with law by affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 04th November

Resplenda Expressions Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 5(4), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1363/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1363 & 1364/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Resplenda Expressions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer No. 138, Luz Church Road, Corporate Ward 5(4), Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. Chennai. [Pan: Aadcr6466M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthilkumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Chennai Dated 07.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12. Both The Appeals Were Restored For The Limited Purposes Of Fresh Adjudication Of Legal Ground Vide Order In M.A. Nos. 92 & 93/Chny/2020 Dated 27.05.2022. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Itat In I.T.A. Nos. 1363 &

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthilkumaran, CIT
Section 147

validity of reopening of assessment under 4 I.T.A. Nos.1363 & 1364/Chny/18 section 147 of the Act in accordance with law by affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 04th November