← 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

Project Swarajya, Cuttack vs. Commissioner-of-Income Tax(Exemption), Hyderabad

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

ITA 411/CTK/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack14 Aug 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.411/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2024-2025) Project Swarajya, Vs Cit(Exemption), Hyderabad Ganesh Ghat, Chandini Chowk, Bhakhrabad, Cuttack-753002 Pan No. : Aaatp 3816 F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ananta Narayan Singhbabu, Adv. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 14/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order, Dated 25.06.2025 Passed By The Ld. Cit(Exemption), Hyderabad For The Assessment Year 2024-2025, Thereby Rejecting The Assessee’S Claim For Registration U/S.80G Of The Act. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Applied In Form 10Ab Seeking Registration U/S.80G Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The Ld.Cit(E) Has Rejected The Application For Registration On Account Of Delay In Filing Form 10Ab. It Was The Submission That No Opportunity Was Granted To The Assessee To Explain The Delay. It Was The Prayer That The Issues May Be Restored To The File Of Ld. Cit(E) So That The Assessee Could Explain The Delay.

For Appellant: Shri Ananta Narayan Singhbabu, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 80G

justice and judicial jurisprudence. Before rejecting an application for registration on account of delay, it would be worthwhile to grant the assessee an opportunity of being heard. This being so, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal in respect of grant of registration u/s.80G

Sri Sri Jadimahal Youth Club, Talakia vs. Commissioner-of-Income Tax(Exemption), Hyderabad

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

ITA 410/CTK/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack14 Aug 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.410/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2024-2025) Sri Sri Jadimahal Youth Club, Vs Cit(Exemption), Hyderabad At: Talakia, Po-Oupada, Via- Oupada, Dist-Balasore-756049 Pan No. : Aagts 5866 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ananta Narayan Singhbabu, Adv. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 14/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order, Dated 17.06.2025 Passed By The Ld. Cit(Exemption), Hyderabad For The Assessment Year 2024-2025, Thereby Rejecting The Assessee’S Claim For Registration U/S.80G Of The Act. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 325 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. Sr. Dr Also Did Not Raise Any Serious Objection To Condone The Delay. Accordingly, Delay Of 325 Days In Filing The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri Ananta Narayan Singhbabu, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 80G

justice and judicial jurisprudence. Before rejecting an application for registration on account of delay, it would be worthwhile to grant the assessee an opportunity of being heard. This being so, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal in respect of grant of registration u/s.80G

M/S. Binapani Iron Store, Berhampur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Berhampur

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

ITA 339/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack14 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.339/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) M/S Binapani Iron Store, Vs Ito Ward-1, Berhampur At: Gate Bazar, Po/Ps:Aska Road Dist : Berhampur-760001 Pan No. : Aayfm 2901 J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 14/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order, Dated 27.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 33 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. Sr. Dr Also Did Not Raise Any Serious Objection To Condone The Delay. Accordingly, Delay Of 33 Days In Filing The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, 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. AO to decide the issue involved ... restoring the issues in this appeal to the file of ld. AO for adjudicating afresh after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard, subject to a payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- 3 (Rupees Five Thousand only) shall be payable by the assessee to the Income Tax Bar Association

Sk Kalimuddin, Bhadrak vs. Income Tax Officer Bhadrak Ward, Bhadrak

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

ITA 322/CTK/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack14 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.322/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-2020) Sk Kalimuddin, Vs Ito Bhadrak Ward, Bhadrak At : Habibnagar, Dhamnagar, Dist : Bhadrak-756117 Pan No. : Cuspk 6932 P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 14/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, 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 submission that the assessee is suffering from cancer on account of which the assessee could not provide the required ... restoring the issues in this appeal to the file of ld. AO for adjudicating afresh after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee shall cooperate in the readjudication proceeding before the AO positively. 3 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

Jyoti Ranjan Biswal, Angul vs. The Income Tax Officer, Angul Ward, Angul

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

ITA 313/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack14 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.313/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) Jyoti Ranjan Biswal, Vs Ito Angul Ward, Angul S/O: Gour Chandra Biswal, At”: Bantol, Po: Talcher Rly Stn. Dist : Angul-759102, Odisha Pan No. : Auhpb 6966 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 14/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order, Dated 04.04.2025 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 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. Ao To Decide The Issue Involved In This Appeal Afresh So That The Assessee Could Be Able To Produce All The Evidence To Substantiate His Claim.

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, 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. AO to decide the issue involved ... restoring the issues in this appeal to the file of ld. AO for adjudicating afresh after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard, subject to a payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) shall be payable by the assessee to the Income Tax Bar Association, ITAT

Thumboor Multipurpose Co-Operative Society Ltd, Thrissur vs. ITO, Ward-2(5), Thrissur

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

ITA 439/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Thumboor Multipurpose Co-Op. Society Ltd. .......... Appellant Vellangallur, Thumboor P.O., Thrissur 680662 [Pan: Aaeat8193N] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Thrissur .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Arun Raj, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.08.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 21.06.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Multipurpose Of Co-Operative Society. The Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18 Was Filed On 21.06.2018 Disclosing Nil Income. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(5), Thrissur (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)

pass a speaking order adverting to the submissions and evidence adduced before the CIT(A) after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 14th