← 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

Harmony Educational Foundation, Pune vs. CIT(E), Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1993/PUN/2024[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Oct 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1993/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2025-26 Harmony Educational V The Commissioner Of Foundation, S Income Tax(Exemption), 1430, Satav Vasti, Wagholi Pune. Lohegaon Road, Wagholi, Pune – 411047. Maharashtra. Pan: Aafch1576E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Ca Abhay A Avchat & Mrs.Ruchi Agarwal(Director) – Ar Revenue By Shri Amol Khairnar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 28/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption) Dated 24.07.2024 Rejecting Registration Under Section 12A(1)(Ac) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

thus the same needs to be set aside 6. The learned CIT erred in passing the order without affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7 The Ld. CIT. without considering the fact that educational activities are de facto carried out, he is not right in doubting ... item (B) of sub-clause (vi) of sub-section (1) of section 12A, rejecting such application, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard;] 11.3 Thus, as per Section 12AB of the Act, the ld.CIT(E) has to satisfy himself about objects of the Trust, Genuineness of the Activities

Victory Marvel Seeds India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward (TDS)-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, these three appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 879/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.722, 879 & 723/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015 & 2015-2016 Victorymarvel Seeds India The Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Ward-(Tds)-2(3), Secunderabad - Vs. Hyderabad. Pin – 500 004 500014 Pan Aaccv9056A. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Kumar Pal Tated राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Sri Krishna Moorthy K. Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 31.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao: These Three Appeals Ita Nos.722, 879 & 723/Hyd./2025 By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Three Separate Orders Dated 29.01.2025, 29.01.2025 & 12.02.2025 Of The Learned Cit(A)-National Faceless Appeal

For Appellant: CA Kumar Pal TatedFor Respondent: : Sri Krishna Moorthy K. Sr. AR
Section 200ASection 234E

confirming the order of the AO for AY 2013-14. 2. The CIT(A) passed the order against the appellant without granting any opportunity of being heard. Hence, the Order is not in accordancewith the principles of natural justice. 3. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of fine

Victorymarvel Seeds India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward (TDS)-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, these three appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 723/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.722, 879 & 723/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015 & 2015-2016 Victorymarvel Seeds India The Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Ward-(Tds)-2(3), Secunderabad - Vs. Hyderabad. Pin – 500 004 500014 Pan Aaccv9056A. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Kumar Pal Tated राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Sri Krishna Moorthy K. Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 31.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao: These Three Appeals Ita Nos.722, 879 & 723/Hyd./2025 By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Three Separate Orders Dated 29.01.2025, 29.01.2025 & 12.02.2025 Of The Learned Cit(A)-National Faceless Appeal

For Appellant: CA Kumar Pal TatedFor Respondent: : Sri Krishna Moorthy K. Sr. AR
Section 200ASection 234E

confirming the order of the AO for AY 2013-14. 2. The CIT(A) passed the order against the appellant without granting any opportunity of being heard. Hence, the Order is not in accordancewith the principles of natural justice. 3. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of fine

Victorymarvel Seeds India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward (TDS)-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, these three appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 722/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.722, 879 & 723/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015 & 2015-2016 Victorymarvel Seeds India The Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Ward-(Tds)-2(3), Secunderabad - Vs. Hyderabad. Pin – 500 004 500014 Pan Aaccv9056A. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Kumar Pal Tated राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Sri Krishna Moorthy K. Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 31.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao: These Three Appeals Ita Nos.722, 879 & 723/Hyd./2025 By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Three Separate Orders Dated 29.01.2025, 29.01.2025 & 12.02.2025 Of The Learned Cit(A)-National Faceless Appeal

For Appellant: CA Kumar Pal TatedFor Respondent: : Sri Krishna Moorthy K. Sr. AR
Section 200ASection 234E

confirming the order of the AO for AY 2013-14. 2. The CIT(A) passed the order against the appellant without granting any opportunity of being heard. Hence, the Order is not in accordancewith the principles of natural justice. 3. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of fine

Ivrcl Indore Gujarat Tollways Limted, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circe-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1427/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1427/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Ivrcl Indore Gujarat Vs. Dy.Cit Tollways Ltd, Hyderabad Circle 2 (1) Pan:Aacci2461C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: N O N E राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 31/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Ivrcl Indore Gujarat Tollways Ltd, (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 08.07.2025 For The A.Y. 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Cit(A) Is In Gross Violation Of The Provisions Of Law & Hence Is Bad In Law. 2 The Cit(A) Has Erred In Upholding The Order Of The Assessing Officer & Dismissing The Appeal.

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: : Smt. U. Mini Chandran, CIT(DR)
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 250(6)

remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the following directions: a. The Ld. CIT(A) shall provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and shall adjudicate the appeal afresh on Page 3 of 4 ITA No 1427 of 2025 IVRCL Indore Gujarat Tollways