← 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

Parvender Sharma, Gautam Budh Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(4), Gautam Budh Nagar

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

ITA 4369/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2012-13 Parvender Sharma Vs. Ito , Ward 5(2)(4), Gautam Budh Nagar, New Delhi Noida Uttar Pradesh -201 307 (Pan: Dqhps5784P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh.Rohit Sharma, Ca Respondent By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.09.2025 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Emanating From The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 20.05.2025 Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. We Have Heard The Rival Contentions & Perused The Records. Before Me, Ld. Ar For The Assessee Submitted That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Addition Of Rs. 30,98,000/- U/S. 69A Made By Treating Cash Depsoti In Bank Account As Unexplained. It Was Further Submitted That Cash Of Rs. 4,29,000/- Belong To Smt. Ishwari (Appellant’S Mother) & Cash Of Rs. 25,16,000/- Belongs To Smt. Premvati Related To Various Properties Sold By Original Owner Of The Property I.E. Smt. Premvati. Ld. Cit(A) Ignored The Submission Of Assessee That He Acted Merely As A Dealer / Broker In Property Transactions & Did Not Own The Funds Deposited In The Bank Account. It Was Also Submitted That Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Not Accepting

For Appellant: Sh.Rohit Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 69A

back the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer with the directions to decide the issues in dispute afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the 2 | P a g e assessee, for which Ld. DR has no objection. I hold and direct accordingly. However, the assessee

Sarvpreet Singh, Delhi vs. Assesssing Officer, Delhi

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

ITA 3998/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2017-18 Sarvpreet Singh, Vs. Assessing Officer, F-18, Mansarovar Garden, Civic Centre, New Delhi New Delhi – 110 015 (Pan: Abjps5404J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.09.2025 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Emanating From The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 24.04.2025 Relating To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee, Despite Issue Of Notice, Thus, I Am Proceeding Exparte Qua The Assessee, After Hearing The Ld. Dr & Perusing The Records. However, It Is Noted That Ld. Ar Has Submitted The Written Submissions Wherein, It Has Been Stated The Assessee Filed His Income Tax Return On 05.08.2017 Declaring It At Income Of Rs. 3,14,900/-. It Was The Further Contention That Notice U/S. 142(1) & 143(2) Of The Act Were Issued & All The Information, As Called For, Were Filed During Income Tax Proceedings But Ignoring All The Replies / Documentary

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)

produce if the matter is remitted back to the AO for deciding the issues afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It was further submitted that addition of Rs. 18,00,000/- was also made on the similar grounds in the case of Mrs. Harvinder Kaur