← 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

M/S. N.R. Infra, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-8(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1704/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1704/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2021-22 M/S.N R Infra, Income Tax Officer, No.29/49-A, East Mada Street, Non-Corporate Ward-8(2), Koyambedu S.O, Chennai. Koyambedu, Chennai-600 107. [Pan: Aaofn9058K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.R.Viswanathan, F.C.A. 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.R.Viswanathan, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 144Section 68

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 ... placed upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TIN box 249 ITR 216. The Ld. AO shall give opportunities of being heard to the assesse and it shall be Page - 3 - of 4 bounden upon the assesse to comply with the notices issued

No.4091, Mallasamudram Paccs Ltd., Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Namakkal

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

ITA 1701/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1701/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21 No.4091 Mallasamudram Primary Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ward-1, Limited, Namakkal. Mallasamudram Post, T.Gode.T.K., Namakkal Dist. Tamil Nadu-637 503. [Pan: Aaban1134E] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.T.S.Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A (Virtual) 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.T.S.Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 270ASection 80P

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 assesse and it shall be bounden upon the assesse to comply with the notices issued

Priti Prajyot Potphode, Palghar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3, Palghar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 4058/MUM/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri. Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 4058/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Priti Prajyot Potphode V/S. Income Tax Officer Umber Pada Wadare, बिधम Ward 3 Safale, Palghar 401102 Amba Wadi, Palghar, Maharashtra, Thane 401404 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Ajhpm9841M Appellant/अपीलधथी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्धाररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Tanmay Phadke-Advocate रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri. Virabhadra Mahajan, (Sr Dr) सुिवधई की िधरीख / Date Of Hearing 09.09.2025 घोर्णध की िधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement 10.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am:- This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 26.08.2024 For The Assessment Year 2014-15, Which In Turn Arises From The Order U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act Passed By Assessing Officer, Nfac, Delhi, Dated 26.03.2021. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Extracted As Under: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The National Faceless Appeal Centre/Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ["The Learned Commissioner (Appeals)] Erred In Deciding The Appeal Ex-Parte In Violation Of The Principle Of Natural Justice. Thus, The Order Dated 26.08.2024 May Be Set Aside & The Matter May Be Restored Back To The File Of The Learned Commissioner (Appeals).

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay Phadke-AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Virabhadra Mahajan, (SR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250

appropriate to set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and restore the mater back to his file for fresh adjudication, with reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our aforesaid observations. Order

Late Sh Mangat Singh Through Legal Heir Sh Mukesh Tyagi, Hapur vs. Income Tax Officer Hapur, National Faceless Appeal Centre

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

ITA 2751/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2011-12 Late Sh. Mangat Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Through Legal Heir Shri Hapur, U.P. Mukesh Tyagi, H.No. 908, Near Jatt Mandir, Delhi Road, Chamri Hapur, Hapur, Uttar Pradesh (Pan: Lbqps1077P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri P. Roy Chaudhari, Adv. (Through V.C.) & Shri Gagan Gupta, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03.09.2025 Order This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.5.2023 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That Impugned Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Has Been Made On A Dead Person Namely Late Shri Mangat Singh, Which Is Not Sustainable In The Eyes Of Law. However, It Should Be Made In The Name Of Legal Heir Of (Assessee) Shri Mangat Singh, Namely Shri Mukesh Tyagi, After Putting His Name On Record Being Legal Heir Of Late Shri Mangat Singh. Ld. Dr Did Not Controvert The Aforesaid Contention Of The Ld. Ar. 3. I Have Heard Both The Parties & Perused The Records. After Considering The Aforesaid Factual Matrix, I Find Considerable Force In The Contention Of The Ld. Ar

For Appellant: Shri P. Roy Chaudhari, Adv. (Through V.C.) &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

pass a speaking order in the name of Legal Heir Shri Mukesh Tyagi, after verification of necessary documentary evidences and grant him adequate opportunity of being heard, in accordance with law. I hold and direct accordingly. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical

Sapna Bansal, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 5(3)(3), Noida

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

ITA 2246/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmasapna Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 5(3)(3), A-1/401, Galaxo Apartments, Noida. Mayur Vihar Phase 1 Extension, Delhi. (Pan : Aakpb3157D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pratiyush Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2025 Date Of Order : 10.09.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 19.02.2025 For Ay 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice That The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) Due To Non-Compliance From The Assessee Side. Based On The Information

For Appellant: Shri Pratiyush Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147

condoned and the matter may be remitted back to Assessing Officer to decide issue afresh on merits with the prayer to give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 3. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue objected to the submissions of the ld. counsel ... remit back the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer with the directions to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, for which Ld. DR has no objection. Assessee is directed to fully cooperate with the AO during the proceedings. We hold

Smgk Agro Products, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Civic Centre

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

ITA 2037/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalsmgk Agro Products, Asst. Cit, F-94, Ashok Vihar, Circle-34(1), Phase-I, Delhi. Vs. Civic Centre, New Delhi. Pan:Abpfs4580B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Pradumna Kumar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03.09.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [‘Cit(A)’ In Short], National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-12/10758/2019-20 Dated 28.01.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, It Is Seen That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Provided As Many As Seven Opportunities To The Assessee For Filing The Written Submissions, However, Either The Adjournment Was Sought Or No Compliance Was Made, Thus, The Ld. Cit(A) Had Passed The Order Ex-Parte Wherein He Confirmed The Observations Made By The Ld. Ao & Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee.

Section 250

remand all the issues to the file of CIT(A) with direction to decide the appeal of the assessee afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 2 IT No.2037/Del/2025 SMGK Agro Products vs. ACIT The assessee is also directed to participate in the appellate proceedings