← 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

Bai Hirabai Jamsetji Tata Na vs. Ari Charitable Institution (Previously Baihirabai Tata Navsari Charitable Institute, Mumbai

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

ITA 2198/MUM/2021[AY 2022-2023 TO AY 2026-27]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2022

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2198/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2022-23 To Ay. 2026-27) Bai Hirabai Jamsetji Tata बिधम/ Cit(Exemptions) 6Th Navsari Charitable Floor, Cumballa Hill, Vs. Institution (Previously Mtnl Building Pedder Road, Known As Baihirabai Tata Mumbai-400026. Navsari Charitable Institute) Bombay House, Ground Floor, Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatb0258P (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Atul Suraiya Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai Dated 02.10.2021 Whereby The Ld. Cit(E) Granted Approval U/S 80G(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). However, The Grant Of Approval Was Made Subject To Several Conditions Imposed In Form No. 10Ac While Granting Registration Under Clause (Iii) Of Proviso To Section 80G(5) Of The Act. Being Aggrieved By The Ld. Cit(E)’S Action Stipulating Several Conditions While Granting Registration U/S 80G Of The Act, The Assessee Is An Appeal Before Us. 2. It Is Admitted Fact That The Assessee Is Registered U/S 12A Of The Act & Further It Is Noted That Similar Issue Has Cropped Up (I.E.

For Appellant: Shri Atul SuraiyaFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

satisfied, pass an order in writing rejecting such application and also cancelling its approval after affording it a reasonable opportunity of being heard; 41. Further, the conditions specified in clauses (i) to (v) read as under- A.Ys.2022-23 to 2026-27 Bai Hirabai Tamsetji Tata Navsari Charitable Institution