← 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

Salahuddin Mohammed, Secunderabad vs. ITO., Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1047/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1047/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Salahuddin Mohd. Vs. Income Tax Officer Secunderabad Ward 11(1) Pan: Adgpm5833N Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Hemalatha K राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 10/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Salahuddin Mohammed, (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) (“Ld.Cit(A)”) Dated 10.08.2024 For The A.Y 2013-14. 2. At The Outset, It Is Seen That There Is A Delay Of 231 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit

For Appellant: CA Hemalatha KFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

extent which is prejudicial to the interest of the appellant. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) should have provided an opportunity of bearing heard by issuing a hearing notice before issuing the order under section 250 of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have accepted the condonation ... delay in filing the appeal after giving an opportunity of being heard. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal merely due to a delay in filing the appeal without even considering the facts and merits of the case. 4 The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated

Vijay Tiles & Cement Products, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-11(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1007/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1007/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vijay Tiles & Cement Vs. Assistant Cit Products, Hyderabad Circle 11(1) Pan: Aagfv3841A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate A.V. Raghuram राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 10/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Vijay Tiles & Cement Products (“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 05/12/2024 For The A.Y 2013-14. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 98 Days In Filing Of The Appeal Before This Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Accompanied By An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. In This Regard, The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. Ar”) Invited Our Attention To Para 4

For Appellant: Advocate A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

therefore, prayed that the matter be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after affording an opportunity of being heard. 8. Per contra, the Ld. DR opposed the remand of the matter, contending that sufficient opportunities had already been provided ... restore the matter to his file for de novo adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and to decide the issues on merits in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation during the appellate