← 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

Chakolas Interfun, Thrissur vs. DCIT Circle 1(1)& Tps, Thrissur

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

ITA 289/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Chakolas Interfurn .......... Appellant Town Hall Road, Thirussur 680020 [Pan: Aabfc5355R] Vs. Acit, Circle – 2(1), Thrissur .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri V. Venugopalan, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.08.2025 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 24.03.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Partnership Firm. The Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18 Was Filed On 24.10.2017 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 31,92,225/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Acit, Circle-2(1), Thrissur (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 16.12.2019

For Appellant: Shri V. Venugopalan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 145A

revalue the opening stock as well on the same basis as adopted for revaluation of the closing stock after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. These grounds of appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes. 4 Chakolas Interfurn 7. Ground of appeal Nos. 5, 6 & 7 challenges

Smita Subhash Mehta, Ratnagiri vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1, Ratnagiri

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

ITA 1108/PUN/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1108/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Smita Subhash Mehta, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Ratnagiri. Pitruchaya, Teen Batti Naka, Khed, Ratnagiri- 415709. Pan : Ankpm7084P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Anup Bipin Shaha Revenue By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.08.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.03.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming & The Ld. Ao Erred In Making The Addition Of Rs.1,50,79,576/- Under Section 69A Of The Act & The Same Is Based On Surmise & Guesswork. The Addition Be Deleted & The Appellant Be Given Just & Due Relief. 2. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming & The Ld. Ao Erred In Making The Addition Of Rs.1,50,79,576/- Under Section 69A Of The Act Without Considering The Appellant'S Response That The Deposits In The Impugned Account Are Already Accounted For In Her

For Appellant: Shri Anup Bipin ShahaFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

with IDBI bank. Since the assessee could not satisfactorily prove the source of the said cash deposits with necessary documentary evidence despite sufficient opportunity of being heard, in order to protect the interest of revenue, the same (amount of Rs. 1,50,79,576/- including cash deposit