← 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

Tamilnadu Transport Development Finance Corpn. Ltd., Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai-3, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1041/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1041/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21 Tamil Nadu Transport Development Principal Commissioner Of Income Finance Corporation Limited, Tax, Tamil Nadu Tourism Complex, Chennai-3, 4Th Floor, No.2, Wallajah Road, Chennai. Anna Road, Chennai-600 002. [Pan: Aaact0747L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.N.Arjun Raj, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl-Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.N.Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl-CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 30Section 37Section 37(1)

aside the assessment to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine the issue in detail and complete the assessment after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee...” 3.0 The Ld.Counsel for the assessee was asked as to how and when the issue of impugned CSR expenses ... PCIT-3, Chennai given in para of 8.2 of the order and to consider their admissibility in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of being heard and by passing a speaking order. 8.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 25th , Sept

Lintas Employees Health Assistance Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 25(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4364/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20 Lintas Employees Health Income-Tax Officer, Assistance Trust Ward – 25(2)(1), 13Th Floor, Express Towers Mumbai Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai – 400021 (Pan: Aaatl0325M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Prakash Jotwani & Ms Priya Gada, Advocates Revenue : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By Assessee Is Against The Order Of Addl/Jcit (A)-1, Hyderabad Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024- 25/1074797264(1), Dated 21.03.2025 Passed Against The Intimation Issued By The Central Processing Centre Of The Department, Bengaluru (Cpc) U/S. 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 12.05.2020 For Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: Ground No. 1: Erred In Not Condoning Delay In Filing The Appeal The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Without Considering The Merits Of The Case & Erred In Not Condoning The Delay Of 964 Days In Filing The Appeal

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jotwani and Ms Priya Gada, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR
Section 10(15)Section 10(35)Section 143(1)

humbly request you to kindly condone this delay and not treat the Assessee as a person in default and grant the opportunity to be heard on merits, 13. The delay is on account of the non-functional income tax website and the inability to file the appeal and the covid ... grounds raised by the assessee at the first appellate stage by passing a speaking order. 5.4. Needless to say, assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard and to make all the relevant submissions as required to substantiate the claim made by it. Accordingly, ground No. 1 raised

Delhi E- Governance Society, Delhi vs. CIT Exemption, Delhi

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

ITA 3232/DEL/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandelhi E-Governance Society, Vs. Cit (Exemption), Department Of Information & Technology, New Delhi. Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi, 9Th Floor, H Wing, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi – 110 002. (Pan : Aaaad8365L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Aditi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 Date Of Order : 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessees Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemption), Delhi [For Short ‘The Ld. Cit (E)] Dated 15.09.2023. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar For The Assessee Brought To Our Notice That The Ld. Cit (E) Rejected The Assessee’S Application In Form 10Ab For Registration/S 12A(1)(Ac)(Iii) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) Without Appreciating The Bonafide Nature Of The Assessee’S Activities & Decided The Issue Against The Assessee By Observing That Assessee Has Not Pursued The Appeal Despite Being Granted Several

For Appellant: Ms. Aditi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR

issue on merit and prayed that this issue may be remitted back to the ld. CIT(E) with the prayer to give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He submitted that there are reasons for assessee for not appearing before the first appellate authority. 3. On the other ... activities and decided the issue ex-parte. In our considered view and in the interest of justice, assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard on merit. Therefore, we direct ld. CIT (E) to give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue