← 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

Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 1151/BANG/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2002-03 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 11 (1), Bangalore – 560 029. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vilas V Shinde, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of The Dated 3/11/2020 Passed By Hon’Ble Karnataka High Court In Ita No.392/2011. Hon’Ble High Court Admitted The Following Question Of Law Vide Order Dated 28/03/2012: “(I) Whether The Tribunal Was Correct In Holding That Whether The Appellate Authority Were Correct In Holding That Maintenance Of Separate Accounts For Stp Units & Non Stp Units Was Only Directory & Not Mandatory In Accordance With Rbi Conditions, Government Notification & Income Tax Act? (Ii) Whether The Appellate Authority Were Correct In Holding That Payments Made To Sub Contractors Who Have Separately Exported & Have Been Issued Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate & Have Also Claimed 10A Deduction Will Also Be Entitled To Double Deduction Under Section 10A Of The Act In Hands Of The Assessee?

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vilas V Shinde, CIT DR
Section 10A

taxman.com 57 and CIT vs Millenia Developers (P) Ltd reported in (2018) 100 taxman.com 369. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to assessee in accordance with law. Accordingly the issue remanded by Hon'ble High Court stands partly à allowed for statistical purposes

Hardik Shah, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) -50, Mumbai

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

ITA 1212/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mahita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 246ASection 271(1)(b)Section 273B

Challan accordingly.” 3. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty simply stating that the appellant-assessee has failed to avail the opportunity of being heard offered by the Assessing Officer and assessee cannot be said to be aggrieved person in terms of provisions of Section 246A

Hardik Shah, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) -50, Mumbai

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

ITA 1211/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mahita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 246ASection 271(1)(b)Section 273B

Challan accordingly.” 3. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty simply stating that the appellant-assessee has failed to avail the opportunity of being heard offered by the Assessing Officer and assessee cannot be said to be aggrieved person in terms of provisions of Section 246A

Hardik Shah, Mumbai vs. Comm of Income Tax (A), Mumbai

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

ITA 1210/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mahita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 246ASection 271(1)(b)Section 273B

Challan accordingly.” 3. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty simply stating that the appellant-assessee has failed to avail the opportunity of being heard offered by the Assessing Officer and assessee cannot be said to be aggrieved person in terms of provisions of Section 246A

Hardik Shah, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), Mumbai

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

ITA 1209/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mahita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 246ASection 271(1)(b)Section 273B

Challan accordingly.” 3. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty simply stating that the appellant-assessee has failed to avail the opportunity of being heard offered by the Assessing Officer and assessee cannot be said to be aggrieved person in terms of provisions of Section 246A

Hardik Shah, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), Mumbai

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

ITA 1208/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mahita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 246ASection 271(1)(b)Section 273B

Challan accordingly.” 3. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty simply stating that the appellant-assessee has failed to avail the opportunity of being heard offered by the Assessing Officer and assessee cannot be said to be aggrieved person in terms of provisions of Section 246A

Naresh Mehta, Mumbai vs. Comm of Income Tax (A) -50, Mumbai

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

ITA 1205/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mahita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 246ASection 271(1)(b)Section 273B

Challan accordingly.” 3. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty simply stating that the appellant-assessee has failed to avail the opportunity of being heard offered by the Assessing Officer and assessee cannot be said to be aggrieved person in terms of provisions of Section 246A

Naresh Mehta, Mumbai vs. Comm of Income Tax(A) -50, Mumbai

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

ITA 1204/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mahita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 246ASection 271(1)(b)Section 273B

Challan accordingly.” 3. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty simply stating that the appellant-assessee has failed to avail the opportunity of being heard offered by the Assessing Officer and assessee cannot be said to be aggrieved person in terms of provisions of Section 246A

Naresh Mehta, Mumbai vs. Comm of Income Tax (A), Mumbai

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

ITA 1203/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mahita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 246ASection 271(1)(b)Section 273B

Challan accordingly.” 3. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty simply stating that the appellant-assessee has failed to avail the opportunity of being heard offered by the Assessing Officer and assessee cannot be said to be aggrieved person in terms of provisions of Section 246A

Naresh Mehta, Mumbai vs. Comm of Income Tax (A), Mumbai

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

ITA 1202/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mahita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 246ASection 271(1)(b)Section 273B

Challan accordingly.” 3. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty simply stating that the appellant-assessee has failed to avail the opportunity of being heard offered by the Assessing Officer and assessee cannot be said to be aggrieved person in terms of provisions of Section 246A

Naresh Mehta, Mumbai vs. Comm of Income Tax (A), Mumbai

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

ITA 1201/MUM/2022[28/03/2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mahita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 246ASection 271(1)(b)Section 273B

Challan accordingly.” 3. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty simply stating that the appellant-assessee has failed to avail the opportunity of being heard offered by the Assessing Officer and assessee cannot be said to be aggrieved person in terms of provisions of Section 246A

Naresh Mehta, Mumbai vs. Comm of Income Tax (Appeals) -50, Mumbai

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

ITA 1200/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mahita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 246ASection 271(1)(b)Section 273B

Challan accordingly.” 3. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty simply stating that the appellant-assessee has failed to avail the opportunity of being heard offered by the Assessing Officer and assessee cannot be said to be aggrieved person in terms of provisions of Section 246A

Neeta Shah, Mumbai vs. Comm of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 1198/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mahita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 246ASection 271(1)(b)Section 273B

Challan accordingly.” 3. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty simply stating that the appellant-assessee has failed to avail the opportunity of being heard offered by the Assessing Officer and assessee cannot be said to be aggrieved person in terms of provisions of Section 246A

Neeta Shah, Mumbai vs. Comm of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 1197/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mahita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 246ASection 271(1)(b)Section 273B

Challan accordingly.” 3. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty simply stating that the appellant-assessee has failed to avail the opportunity of being heard offered by the Assessing Officer and assessee cannot be said to be aggrieved person in terms of provisions of Section 246A

Neeta Shah, Mumbai vs. Comm of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 1196/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mahita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 246ASection 271(1)(b)Section 273B

Challan accordingly.” 3. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty simply stating that the appellant-assessee has failed to avail the opportunity of being heard offered by the Assessing Officer and assessee cannot be said to be aggrieved person in terms of provisions of Section 246A

Neeta Shah, Mumbai vs. Comm of Income Tax (A)-50, Mumbai

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

ITA 1195/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mahita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 246ASection 271(1)(b)Section 273B

Challan accordingly.” 3. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty simply stating that the appellant-assessee has failed to avail the opportunity of being heard offered by the Assessing Officer and assessee cannot be said to be aggrieved person in terms of provisions of Section 246A

Neeta Shah, Mumbai vs. Comm of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 1194/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mahita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 246ASection 271(1)(b)Section 273B

Challan accordingly.” 3. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty simply stating that the appellant-assessee has failed to avail the opportunity of being heard offered by the Assessing Officer and assessee cannot be said to be aggrieved person in terms of provisions of Section 246A

Neeta Shah, Mumbai vs. Comm of Income Tax (A), Mumbai

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

ITA 1192/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mahita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 246ASection 271(1)(b)Section 273B

Challan accordingly.” 3. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty simply stating that the appellant-assessee has failed to avail the opportunity of being heard offered by the Assessing Officer and assessee cannot be said to be aggrieved person in terms of provisions of Section 246A

Pallavi Mehta, Mumbai vs. Comm of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 1191/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mahita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 246ASection 271(1)(b)Section 273B

Challan accordingly.” 3. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty simply stating that the appellant-assessee has failed to avail the opportunity of being heard offered by the Assessing Officer and assessee cannot be said to be aggrieved person in terms of provisions of Section 246A

Pallavi Mehta, Mumbai vs. Comm of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 1190/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mahita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 246ASection 271(1)(b)Section 273B

Challan accordingly.” 3. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty simply stating that the appellant-assessee has failed to avail the opportunity of being heard offered by the Assessing Officer and assessee cannot be said to be aggrieved person in terms of provisions of Section 246A