← 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

Income Tax Officer 9(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Astra Exim Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 230/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kantι.Τ.Α. Nos. 198 & 230/Mum/2025 A.Ys: 2014-15 & 2016-17 Ito Officer 9 (1)(1) Room No. 205, Aayakar Bhavan Room No. 205, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) Vs Astra Exim Pvt Ltd Unit No. 4101, 4Th Floor, Oberoi Garden Estate, С- Wing, Off Saki Vihar Road, Chandivili, Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aadca9987A (Respondent) Co. No. 108/Mum/2025 A.Y: 2014-15 Astra Exim Pvt Ltd Unit No. 4101, 4Th Floor, Oberoi Garden Estate, С- Wing, Off Saki Vihar Road, Chandivili, Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aadca9987A (Appellant) Vs Ito Officer 9 (1)(1) Room No. 205, Aayakar Bhavan Room No. 205, М.К. Road Mumbai - 400020 (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Gaurav Bansal Respondent By Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav Cit –Dr & Shri Surendra Mohan (Sr.Dr) Date Of Hearing 16.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 Order Astra Exim Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Per Sandeep Gosain (Jm): The Present Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objections By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dt. 24.11.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act'), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) / Cit(A) For The Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2016-17. 2. Since All The Issues Involved In These Appeals & Cross Objection Are Common & Identical & Belongs To One Assessee Therefore, They Have Been Clubbed, Heard Together & Consolidated Order Is Being Passed. Firstly, We Shall Take Ita No. 198/Mum/2025, A.Y 2014-15 As Lead Case & Facts Narrated Therein.

Section 144BSection 148Section 148ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT

N N M Securities Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1506/MUM/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2013-14 Nnm Securities Private Assessing Officer, Limited, 1111, Stock Mumbai, Maharashtra – Vs. Exchange Tower, Dalal 400020. Street, Maharashtra - 400023. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacn 8070 G Present For: Assessee By : Shri Hansaraj Sanghavi Revenue By : Shri.Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr.A.R) Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.03.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 02.01.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2013-14. 2. In This Case, The Assessee Had Declared Its Income At Rs.12,41,210/- By Filing Its Return Of Income On Dated 28.09.2013 Which Was Processed & Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act, On 17.02.2016. Thereafter The Following Information Was Received By The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Shri Hansaraj SanghaviFor Respondent: Shri.Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (SR.A.R)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144B(1)(xi)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

case, by remanding the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice it to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 11. We also deem it appropriate to direct the Assessee to make effective compliance before the Ld. Commissioner and file