← 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

Sri Mallikarjuna Swamy Devasthanam, Karimnagar vs. CIT(Exemption), Basheerbagh, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1083/HYD/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1082 & 1083/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2025-26) M/S. Sri Mallikarjuna Swamy Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Devasthanam, Karimnagar. (Exemption), Pan: Aamts0172M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Appeals Are Filed By M/S. Sri Mallikarjuna Swamy Devasthanam (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(E)”), Dated 12.03.2025 & 17.03.2025 For The A.Y. 2025-26 Respectively. Since The Issues Involved In Both These Appeals Are Identical & Belong To The Same Assessee, One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

decide the application for registration ITA Nos.1082 & 1083/Hyd/2025 10 under section 12AB on merits. The Ld. CIT(E) shall provide due opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing a fresh order. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1082/Hyd/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes

Sri Mallikarjuna Swamy Devasthanam, Karimnagar, Telangana vs. CIT (Exemption), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1082/HYD/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1082 & 1083/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2025-26) M/S. Sri Mallikarjuna Swamy Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Devasthanam, Karimnagar. (Exemption), Pan: Aamts0172M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Appeals Are Filed By M/S. Sri Mallikarjuna Swamy Devasthanam (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(E)”), Dated 12.03.2025 & 17.03.2025 For The A.Y. 2025-26 Respectively. Since The Issues Involved In Both These Appeals Are Identical & Belong To The Same Assessee, One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

decide the application for registration ITA Nos.1082 & 1083/Hyd/2025 10 under section 12AB on merits. The Ld. CIT(E) shall provide due opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing a fresh order. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1082/Hyd/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes

DCIT., Circle-13(1), Hyderabad vs. The Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Kothagudem

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 307/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.285/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) M/S. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle 13(1), Hyderabad. Kothagudem. Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.307/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Circle 13(1), Hyderabad. Vs. Kothagudem. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Anil Kumar, Advocate & Shri C.H.Venkatesh, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms.U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/09/2025

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil Kumar, Advocate and Shri C.H.Venkatesh, C.AFor Respondent: Ms.U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144B

indeed pertains to the closing stock of the subsidiary, then the Ld. AO shall delete the addition. The assessee shall be afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard in this regard. Accordingly, the ground nos. 1 and 2 of the assessee’s appeal are allowed for statistical purposes. 9. The ground ... assessee in the return of income, resulting in double addition, the Ld. AO shall delete the disallowances. The assessee shall be afforded due opportunity of being heard. Ground nos. 7 to 10 of the assessee’s appeal are allowed for statistical purposes. 15. The ground no. 11 of the assessee

Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Kothagudem vs. DCIT., Circle-13(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 285/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.285/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) M/S. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle 13(1), Hyderabad. Kothagudem. Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.307/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Circle 13(1), Hyderabad. Vs. Kothagudem. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Anil Kumar, Advocate & Shri C.H.Venkatesh, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms.U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/09/2025

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil Kumar, Advocate and Shri C.H.Venkatesh, C.AFor Respondent: Ms.U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144B

indeed pertains to the closing stock of the subsidiary, then the Ld. AO shall delete the addition. The assessee shall be afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard in this regard. Accordingly, the ground nos. 1 and 2 of the assessee’s appeal are allowed for statistical purposes. 9. The ground ... assessee in the return of income, resulting in double addition, the Ld. AO shall delete the disallowances. The assessee shall be afforded due opportunity of being heard. Ground nos. 7 to 10 of the assessee’s appeal are allowed for statistical purposes. 15. The ground no. 11 of the assessee

Shah A. Anandhkumar, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward- 5(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1710/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1710/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 Shah A Anand Kumar, Income Tax Officer, No.30/2, Flowers Road, Kilpauk, Corporate Ward-5(2), Chennai-600 010. Chennai. [Pan: Aelpa7544N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.J.Saravanan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.J.Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 68Section 69C

assessee submitted that the Ld. First Appellate Authority has also confirmed the addition by passing an ex-parte order without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard. It was accordingly pleaded that in the interest of justice the matter may be restored back to the file of Ld.AO for readjudication ... passing a speaking order. To the extent the order of lower authorities on this issue stands set aside. The Ld. AO shall give opportunities of being heard to the assessee and it shall be bounden upon the assessee to Page - 4 - of 6 comply with the notices issued