← 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

Arjun Panjiar, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 6 (4), Patna

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

ITA 304/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) Assessment Year : 2016-17 Arjun Panjiar, S/O. Late Bharoshi Vs. Ito, Ward 6(4), Patna Panjiar, Flat No.7, Vishal Apartment, Rampur Road, Near Bazar Samiti Gate, Po: Mahendra, Ps: Sultanganj, Patna Pan/Gir No. Aehpp 4129 G (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Kumar, Adv Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kumar Singhal, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 28/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/09/2025 O R D E R The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Addl/Jcit(A)-Gwalior Dated 14.01.2025 In Appeal No.Cit(A), Patna -2/10168/2019-20 Passed For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 86 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Stating That The Order Of Ld Cit(A) Is Dated 14.1.2025 & The Appeal Was Required To Be Filed Within 60 Days, However, The Order Was Uploaded On The E-Portal Under The Tab “For Your Information” Way Back

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kumar Singhal, JCIT
Section 144

principle of natural justice, remit the matter back to the file of the ld AO with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the AO failing

Punam Sinha, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 6 (1), Patna

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

ITA 298/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) Assessment Year : 2015-16 Punam Sinha, Near Shiv Mandir, Vs. Ito, Ward 6(1), Patna Khajpura, Patna-800014,Bihar Pan/Gir No. Ainps 1974 Q (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kumar Singhal, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/09/2025 O R D E R The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nafc), New Delhi Nfac), Delhi Dated 06.06.2024 In Appeal No.Cit(A), Patna -2/11391/2019-20 Passed For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 301 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Stating That At The Time Of Ld Cit(A) Passed The Order, The Assessee Was Suffering From Spine Diseases & Also Eye Disease I.E. Glucoma. Due To This Fact, She Was Not Unable To Look After Her Day-To-Day Business. It Is Also Stated That Assessee Being A Lady Was Not Conversant With P A G E 1 | 5 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kumar Singhal, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 53A

file of the ld CIT(A) with a direction to provide P a g e 3 | 5 Assessment Year : 2015-16 one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before

Jai Prakash Singh, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 6 (1), Patna

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for

ITA 297/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) Assessment Year : 2015-16 Jai Prakash Singh, Near Shiv Vs. Ito, Ward 6(1), Patna Mandir, Khajpura, Patna- 800014, Bihar Pan/Gir No. Ainps 1974 Q (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kumar Singhal, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 28/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/09/2025 O R D E R The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nafc), New Delhi Nfac), Delhi Dated 21.08.2024 In Appeal No.Cit(A), Patna -1/11368/2019-20 Passed For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 239 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Stating That The Assessee Being A Senior Citizen & Was Not Conversant With The Computer System. The Notices Were Issued To The Assessee By The Ld Cit(A) In The Income Tax Portal & Since The Assessee Was Not Aware Of The Notices, No Submissions As Well As Paper Book Was Filed.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kumar Singhal, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 53A

natural justice, and remit the matter back to the file of the ld CIT(A) with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before

Protech Packaging Pvt. Ltd, Patna vs. ITO, Ward, 2(2), Patna

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for

ITA 214/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) Assessment Year : 2015-16 Protech Packaging Pvt Ltd., 3A, Vs. Ito, Ward 2(2), Patna Ground Floor, Pushpanjali Venkatesh, Budh Marg, Patna- 80000 Pan/Gir No. Aagcp 1473 K (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kumar Singhal, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 28/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/09/2025 O R D E R The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nafc), New Delhi Nfac), Delhi Dated 23.06.2023 In Appeal No.Cit(A), Patna -1/10147/2017-18 Passed For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 607 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Stating That The Order Of Ld Cit(A) Was Passed On 23.6.2023 & The Appeal Was Required To Be Filed Within 60 Days, However, Due To Serious Illness Of The Accountant Who Was Entrusted To Take Steps In P A G E 1 | 5 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kumar Singhal, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 56

natural justice, and remit the matter back to the file of the ld CIT(A) with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before

Jaybheri Enterprises, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam

ITA 410/VIZ/2025[2012-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Sept 2025AY 2012-22

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.410/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2021-22) Jaybheri Enterprises, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaofj1639A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Sri Mn. Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 30/09/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 11/12/2024, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Income

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: Sri MN. Murthy Naik
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)

fairness be set-aside to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to re- decide the appeal after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee firm. 8 Jaybheri Enterprises vs. ITO 12. We have thoughtfully considered the contentions advanced by the Learned Authorized Representatives ... appeal based on a speaking and reasoned order. Needless to say, the CIT(A) shall in the set-aside proceedings afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee firm. 16. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee firm is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid

Naga Hanuman Solvent Oils Pvt Ltd, Visakhapatnam vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

ITA 273/VIZ/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.273/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15) Naga Hanuman Solvent Vs. Deputy Commissioner Oils (Pvt) Ltd., Of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam. Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaccn1547J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 30/09/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 21/02/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 263

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

with a direction to readjudicate 6 Naga Hanuman Solvent Oils (P) Ltd vs. DCIT the same after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 10. Per contra, Dr. Aparna Villuri, the Learned Departmental Representative (for short, “Ld. DR”) relied upon the orders of the lower Authorities ... with a direction to re-adjudicate the appeal on merits after 8 Naga Hanuman Solvent Oils (P) Ltd vs. DCIT affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee company. 15. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid