← 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

Bhupesh Kumar, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 43(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5530/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2016-17 Bhupesh Kumar, Vs Ito, 380, 1St Floor, Block-B, Ward 43(3), Sector-19, Dwarka, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Ahmpk6335M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar Kataria, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2021 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Ex Parte Order Dated 7Th June, 2019 Of The Cit(A)-15, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Despite Issue Of Notice Through Rpad. Therefore, This Appeal Is Being Decided On The Basis Of Material Available On Record & After Hearing The Ld. Dr 3. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, These All Relate To The Ex Parte Order Of The Cit(A) In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.22,94,977/- Made By The Ao In The Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The It Act, 1961. 4. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 30Th December, 2016 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.3,45,440/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny To Verify The Cash In Hand Shown In The Income-Tax Return. Notice U/S 143(2) & A Questionnaire Along With Notice U/S 142(1) Was Issued & Served On The Assessee On Different Dates. From The Various Details Furnished By The Assessee, The Ao Noted That The Assessee Could Not Explain The Huge Difference Of Rs.22,94,977/- In Cash In Hand As Compared To Last Year’S Balance Sheet. Although Due Opportunity Was Granted By The Ao, However, There Was No Satisfactory Compliance From The Side Of The Assessee To His Query. The Ao Noted That The Cash In Hand As On 31.03.2015 Was Rs.17,26,593/- Whereas The Cash Balance As On 31.03.2016 Was Rs.40,21,870/-. Since The Difference Of Rs.22,94,977/- Remained Unexplained, The Ao Made Addition Of The Same To The Total Income Of The Assessee.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Kataria, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

made by the AO. It is the grievance of the assessee in the grounds of appeal that the ld.CIT(A), without affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, sustained the addition made by the AO. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest