← 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

Shri Balkrishna Vithal Shinde, Mumbai vs. ITO 28(1) (2), Mumbai

ITA 1753/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1753/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ito-28(1)(2), Shri Balkrishna Vithal Mumbai-400 703 Shinde A-9, Ganga Tower Co-Op बनाम/ Housing Society, Plot Vs. No. 40A, Sector-16, Vashi, Navi Mumbai -400 703, स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaips4294A (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri B. N. Rao, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 03.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 24.08.2022 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 24.02.2020, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-26

For Appellant: Shri B. N. Rao, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha
Section 144Section 264Section 69ASection 80C

this matter afresh condoning the delay in accordance with 7 I.T.A. No. 1753/Mum/2021 Shri Balkrishna Vithal Shinde law after giving due and effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the net result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Orders pronounced

Adarsh Chamanlal Kaul, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1952/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyaladarsh Chamanlal Kaul 10Th Floor 2, It Park, Techniplex Ii, Junction Of Veer Savarkar Flyover, Goregaon (West), Mumbai-400062 Pan: Ahrpk7595A ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Cpc Bangaluru Pin-560500. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Sunil G. Rohra Respondent By : Sh. Mehul Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As (‘Nfac’) Dated 26.08.2021 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. "On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In The Law, Faa Erred In Passing Ex-Parte Order Without Providing A Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard In The Course Of Faceless Hearing To The Appellant Without Appreciating The Facts That Submissions Couldn'T Be Uploaded Due To Non- Functional/ Technical Glitches On The Income Tax Portal Since 1St June 2021 Onwards".

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil G. RohraFor Respondent: Sh. Mehul Jain, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the law, FAA erred in passing ex-parte order without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the course of faceless hearing to the appellant without appreciating the facts that submissions couldn't be uploaded due to non- functional

Anup Enterprises, Mumbai vs. The Principal CIT-19, Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 2 & 3 raised by the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 1641/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalanup Enterprises, 41, 4Th Floor, Neelkamal, Pedder Road, Mumbai-400026 Pan: Aaafa5067D ...... Appellant Vs. The Pr.Cit-19, Room No. 228, 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Mumbai-400007 ..... Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt. Shailja Rai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 26/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-19, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As (‘Ld. Pr.Cit) Dated 22.03.2021 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 263Section 263(1)Section 3

PCIT") u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") is invalid and bad in law without providing the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 2. The ld. PCIT has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating that the order passed by the of Income ... Enterprises 8. A notice under section 263(1) of the I.T. Act dated 16.03.2020 was issued to the assessee to provide it an opportunity to be heard. But again assessee has not responded to the said notice. Ground no.1 raised by assessee does not hold water as observed (supra) that