← 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

Mr. Jitendra Walia, Hardwar vs. ITO, W-1(3)(1) 44(2), Haridwar

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

ITA 115/DDN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalmr. Jitendra Walia, Income Tax Officer, 653, Sarai Road, Ward-1(3)(1), 44(2), Jwalapur, Haridwar-249407. Vs. Haridwar. Pan:Abvpw9014C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. & Shri Sandeep Yadav, Adv. Department By Shri A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (‘The Cit(A) In Short) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 22.04.2025 For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. At The Outset, It Is Seen That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Dismissed By The Ld. Cit(A) For Non-Prosecution. Before Us, The Ld. Ar Submitted That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Issued Notices Which Were Delivered To The Registered Email Address Of The Appellant & Were Also Uploaded In The Portal Of The Department, However, The Assessee Was Not Aware Of The Proceedings Nor Such Notices Were Brought To His Knowledge By The Accountant Of The Assessee, Therefore, The Necessary Compliance Could Not Be Made Either Before The Ao Or Before The Cit(A). He Thus

Section 250

matter is remitted back to the file of the AO with direction to decide the issue denovo afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to participate in the proceedings before the AO. With these directions, all the grounds of appeal

Suraj Lal Singh, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Jamshedpur

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

ITA 72/RAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi27 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan(Through Hybrid Mode) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.72/Ran/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Suraj Lal Singh, Vs. Ito Ward-2(1), 8-7-94/D/98, 99/102, Venkata Jamshedpur Sai Residency, Dwarkanagar Colony, Hasthinapur, Saroornagar, Hyderabad, Telengana-500079 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Afwps 5251 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Addl/Jcit(A), Varanasi, Dated 11.03.2025 For The Assessment Year 2017- 2018. 2. None Represented On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. I Have Considered The Submission Of The Ld.Sr. Dr & Perused The Orders Of The Authorities Below. As It Is Noticed That The Assessee Was Non- Cooperative Before Both The Authorities Below Nor Provided Any Details To Substantiate His Claim, Therefore, In The Interest Of Justice, Issues In This Appeal Are Restored To The File Of The Ao For Readjudication After Granting The Assessee Adequate Opportunity Of Being Heard.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr

interest of justice, issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the AO for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. 2 4. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court