← 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

Arumugam Pavalakkodi, Villupuram vs. ITO, Ward-2, Villupuram

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

ITA 1822/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1822/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2011-12 Arumugam Pavalakkodi, Income Tax Officer, No.76 Salem Main Road, Chinnasalem, Ward-2, Kallakkurichi, Villupuram, Villupuram. Tamil Nadu-606 201. [Pan: Brupp8511R] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.S.Sridhar, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Veeramany K, Irs सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba / Nfac / S / 250 / 2022-23 / 1051051140(1) Dated 21.03.2023 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Herein After “Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[Nfac], Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2011-12. The Reference To The Word “Act” In This Order Hereinafter Shall Mean The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Amended From Time To Time.

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Veeramany K, IRS

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 bounden upon the assesse to comply with the notices issued

Vama Charitable Trust, Tirunelveli vs. CIT(Exemptions), Chennai

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

ITA 1798/CHNY/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1798/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2023-24 Vama Charitable Trust, Commissioner Of Income Tax Sivanthiappar Mela Street, Sivasailam (Exemptions) Road, Alwarkurichi, Ambasamudram, Chennai. Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu-627 412. [Pan: Aactv6752C] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri H.Yeshwanthkumar, C.A प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri H.Yeshwanthkumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 12ASection 80G

account of non-compliance by the assessee. A unilateral conclusion cannot be basis for a judicious decision. It is trite law that opportunity of being heard is the basic right available to a litigant and cannot be taken away unilaterally. Thus we are of the considered view that the Ld.CIT ... Ld.CIT(E ) and direct him to readjudicate the matter afresh by passing a speaking order, in accordance with law, and after giving due opportunity of being heard. The assessee shall comply with all the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(E ). Page - 3 - of 4 ITA No.1798 /Chny/2025 Accordingly