← 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

Rupesh Singh, Dehradun vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun

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

ITA 29/DDN/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun10 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2020-21] Rupesh Singh Vs Dcit Old Post Office Road Dehradun Banjarawala, Kedarwala Uttarakhand Ajabpur, Dehradun Uttarakhand Pan-Bcfps3008C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Prashant Kochhar, Ca Respondent By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.09.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 06.01.20225 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. From The Perusal Of The Appellate Order, It Is Found That Ld. Cit(A) Has Not Admitted The Appeal As It Was Filed Delay By 50 Days Before The Ld. Cit(A). The Reasons Given In Delay Condonation Petition Was That Due To Ill Health Of The Previous Counsel, Delay Was Occurred In Searching & Appointing New Counsel. It Is Further Claimed That Assessee Is Unaware Of Any Communication, Notice & The Proceedings Initiated By The Department. Thus, Due To These Reasons, The Appeal Was Filed Delayed Before The Ld. Cit(A) By 50 Days. The Reason Being Sufficient, Therefore, It Was Prayed Before The Ld. Cit(A) To Condone The Delay & Decide The Appeal On Merits. It Is Further Observed That Despite Of Several Notices, Assessee Has Failed To Make Any Compliance Before The Ld. Cit(A).

Section 147Section 250

matter is restored to the file of the AO with direction to pass the assessment order denovo afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to participate in proceedings before the AO. With these directions, the case is partly allowed for statistical