← 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

Divyavani Trust, Hyderabad vs. CIT (Exemption), Hyderabad

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

ITA 564/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.564/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2023-24) M/S. Divyavani Trust, Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Hyderabad. (Exemption), Pan:Aadtd2316F Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, Adv. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 20/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By M/S. Divyavani Trust (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(E)”), Dated 19.03.2025 For The A.Y. 2023-24. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: : Shri Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

opportunity to file a fresh application in the correct section code under section 12A, and adjudicate the same on merits after granting due opportunity of being heard. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 20th August

Altran Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Corp. Circle-1, Coimbatore

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

ITA 806/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.806/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2015-16 Altran Technologies India Private Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, 2Nd Floor, A Block, A-Wing, It-1 & It-2, Corporate Circle-1, Airoli Knowledge Park, Thane-Belapur Coimbatore. Road, Navi Mumbai, Airoli Thane, Thane, Maharashtra-400 708. [Pan: Aadcp1380N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Ms.N.V.Lakshmi, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mrs.C.Yamuna, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Ms.N.V.Lakshmi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs.C.Yamuna, CIT

that its rights under natural justice has been violated by the Ld.CIT(A) in as much as it has not been given due opportunity of being heard. It was urged that the assessee is in possession of all the evidences to exhibit that no case of any addition is made ... accordingly requested that the matter may kindly be considered to be set aside to the Ld.CIT(A) for readjudication after giving due opportunity of being heard. 4.0 Per contra, the Ld.DR relied upon the order of lower authorities. 5.0 We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material

M/S. Crab Meat Processors Association, Tuticorin vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

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

ITA 510/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.510/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2021-22 M/S.Crab Meat Processors Association, Commissioner Of Income Tax No.18, Tuticorin Cooperative Industrial (Exemption), Estate Limited, Korampallam, Tuticorin, Chennai. Tamil Nadu-628 101. [Pan: Aacac8490R] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri D.Anand, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri D.Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 11Section 12Section 12A

defined in section 2(15) of the Act. 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. We have also noted from para ... 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 ). Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee