← 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

Magan Mal Sethia, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 33(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 181/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishramagan Mal Sethia, Vs Ito, Ward-33(1), Kolkata 5 Russel Street, Kolkata-700071 Pan No. :Alops 2055 G (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Lakra, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 05.12.2024 For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld Ar That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Without Providing Any Sufficient Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee. It Was The Prayer That The Matter May Be Restored To The File Of Ld. Cit(A) To Decide The Issue Involved In The Appeal Afresh So That The Assessee Could Be Able To Produce All The Evidence To Substantiate His Claim. 3. In Reply, Ld Sr. Dr Vehemently Supported The Orders Of The Assessing Officer & Ld. Cit(A). It Was The Submission That The Assessee Has Not Produced Any Evidence Either Before The Ld. Assessing Officer Or Before The Ld. Cit(A).

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Lakra, Sr. DR

submitted by the ld AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without providing any sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It was the prayer that the matter may be restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue involved ... restoring the issues in the appeal to the file of ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating afresh after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee shall cooperate in the readjudication proceeding before the ld.CIT(A) positively. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Orion Pest Solutions Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Circle 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1455/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraorion Pest Solutions Pvt. Ltd Vs Ito, Circle-11(1), Kolkata 200W, S.P.Mukherjee Road, Kalighat So Kolkata-700026 Pan No. :Aabco 0290 J (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Praveen Kishore, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 24.07.2024 For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Praveen Kishore, Ld.Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 277 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported With An Affidavit Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons For Delay, Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Ld. Cit-Dr Also Did Not Raise Any Serious Objection To Condone The Delay. Accordingly, Delay Of 277 Days In Filing The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT-DR

restoring the issues in the appeal to the file of ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating afresh after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee shall cooperate in the readjudication proceeding before the ld.CIT(A) positively. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed