← 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

Indra Singh, Gwalior vs. ITO Ward -3(2), Gwalior

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

ITA 485/AGR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahmanindra Singh, Vs. Ito, Ward 3 (2), 219/4, Dogarpur, Murar, Gwalior. Gwalior – 474 006 (Madhya Pradesh). (Pan : Cfmps5449J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2025 Date Of Order : 17.12.2025 O R D E R 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 19.03.2025 For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. At The Time Of Filing Of Appeal, The Registry Has Pointed Out A Defect That Appeal Is Time Barred By 147 Days. In Response Thereof, The Assessee Has Filed An Application Seeking Condonation Of Delay In Filing Of The Appeal On The Ground That The Assessee Promptly Informed Chartered Accountant Regarding The Said Order For Further Necessary Action, However Due To Inadvertence & Omission On The Part Of The Chartered Accountant, The Appeal Before The Tribunal Could Not Be Filed Within The Prescribed Time Limit. It Was Submitted

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

remit back the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer with the directions to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, for which Ld. DR has no objection. Assessee is directed to fully cooperate with the AO during the proceedings. I hold

Shashank Jain, Gwalior vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Gwalior

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

ITA 482/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahmanshashank Jain, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(1), 303, Vincon Plaza, Gwalior. Shinde Ki Chhawani, Lashkar, Gwalior – 474 009 (Madhya Pradesh). (Pan : Amqpj0747B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2025 Date Of Order : 17.12.2025 O R D E R 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 21.08.2025 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. I Proceeded To Adjudicate The Issue With The Assistance Of Ld. Dr Of The Revenue. 3. At The Time Of Hearing, It Was Observed That That The Ld. Cit (A) Decided The Issue Against The Assessee By Observing That Assessee Has Not Pursued The Appeal Despite Being Granted Several Opportunities & The Details Are Given In The First Appellate Order & Dismissed The Appeal. It Is Observed That Ld. Cit

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. DR

remit back the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer with the directions to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, for which Ld. DR has no objection. Assessee is directed to fully cooperate with the AO during the proceedings. I hold

Ashok Hirachand Shah, Panvel vs. Assessing Officer Ward 2, Panvel

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 812/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.812/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Ashok Hirachand Shah, Assessing Officer, Plot No. 4, Mangal Bunglow, Ward – 2, Panvel Road No. 5, Sector No. 19, Vs. New Panvel, Tal.-Panvel-410206 Pan : Acdps4800M अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajinkya Shah Department By : Shri Rajesh Gawali Date Of Hearing : 09-12-2025 Date Of 17-12-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.01.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Denial Of Natural Justice & Proper Opportunity The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Without Considering That The Appellant Was Denied Proper Opportunity & Natural Justice During The Assessment Proceedings. The Assessing Officer Called For Information At The Far End Of The Assessment Proceedings On 19/11/2018 & Despite The Appellant'S Authorized Representative Submitting The Details On 19/12/2018, The Ao Failed To Discuss Or Consider The Same. The Matter Ought To Have Been Remanded Back For Fresh Adjudication To Allow Proper Analysis Of The Transactions. 2. Addition Without Specifying The Section The Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Addition Of Rs. 1,49,05,289/- Made By The Ao Without Specifying The Section Under Which The Addition Was Made. The Non-Mention Of The Specific Section Renders The Assessment Order Bad In Law, As It Violates The Principles Of Natural Justice & Transparency In Taxation. 3. Failure To Discharge Onus Under Section 69A

For Appellant: Shri Ajinkya ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali
Section 147Section 69A

matter back to his file with a direction to decide the impugned issues on merits as per fact and law, after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee shall appear and make submissions before the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC on the appointed date