← 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

J & K Womens Dev Corporation Limited, Jammu vs. Dy.C.I.T. (Exemptions), Circle-1, Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 351/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 350 & 351/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2020-21 J&K Womens Dev Corporation The Dcit Limited, Auqaf Complex बनाम (Exemptions), Opposite Government Circle-1, Vs. Hospital, Chandigarh Gandhi Nagar, Jammu 180004 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaacj4584F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By: None राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 144

Learned CIT (A), (NFAC) Delhi erred in confirming the additions made by the Ld. AO and passed ex-parte order without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard. 2. That the appellant craves the leave to add, amend, modify, delete any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time ... grounds of appeal, requested to remand these cases back to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide it afresh by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard. 4. Per contra, the ld. DR pointed out that despite the fact that many notices were issued by the Assessing Officer

J & K Womens Dev Corporation Limited, Jammu vs. Dy.C.I.T. (Exemptions), Circle -1, Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 350/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 350 & 351/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2020-21 J&K Womens Dev Corporation The Dcit Limited, Auqaf Complex बनाम (Exemptions), Opposite Government Circle-1, Vs. Hospital, Chandigarh Gandhi Nagar, Jammu 180004 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaacj4584F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By: None राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 144

Learned CIT (A), (NFAC) Delhi erred in confirming the additions made by the Ld. AO and passed ex-parte order without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard. 2. That the appellant craves the leave to add, amend, modify, delete any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time ... grounds of appeal, requested to remand these cases back to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide it afresh by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard. 4. Per contra, the ld. DR pointed out that despite the fact that many notices were issued by the Assessing Officer

Amarjit Singh, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1) Ludhiana, Ludhiana

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

ITA 1171/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1171 /Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Amarjit Singh बनाम The ITO C/o V V Bhalla & Company Ward 6(1) SCF-39, Rishi Nagar Main Market, Ludhiana Adjoining Subway, Ludhiana-141001, Punjab स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ABTPS8558B अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri Pankaj Bhalla, C.A राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Bhalla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 144ASection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 250(6)Section 270A

Delhi has failed to appreciate that the L.d. AO erred in law & facts in passing order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 without giving proper opportunity of being heard in contravention to the principles of natural justice i.e. audi alteram partem. 8. That the Ld. C.I.T.(A), NFAC, Delhi has failed ... penalty proceedings under the mentioned sections. The assessee objected to the reassessment proceedings on grounds of invalid approval under section 151, lack of opportunity of being heard, and non-adherence to the procedure under sections 147, 144, and 144B. 4. Against the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred

Shivratan Motilal Rathi HUF, Pune vs. ITO, Jalna

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 606/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.605 & 606/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2011-12 Shivratan Motilalji Rathi Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Jalna. Huf, Rathi Rathi & Co., 501-504, Akshay Landmarks, Opp. Pu La Garden, Sinhagad Road, Jalna- 411030. Pan : Aaehr5318G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Miss Smruti Sabnis Revenue By Shri Akhilesh Srivastva : Date Of Hearing 24.07.2025 : Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 21.10.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. There Is Delay Of 64 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit For Condonation That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeals Within The Prescribed Time Limit. Ld. Dr Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection To Condone The Delay, Therefore We Condone The Delay Of 64 Days & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals. 3. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 4. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.605/Pun/2025 For Assessment Year 2008-09 As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Miss Smruti Sabnis
Section 142(1)Section 142ASection 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 249(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

appeal filed by the Appellant based on the provisions of Section 249(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 without providing an opportunity of being heard even though the said provisions do not apply in the present case. Ground 3. Learned CIT(A) has erred in maintaining the addition made

Shivratan Motilalji Rathi HUF, Pune vs. ITO, Jalna

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 605/PUN/2025[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.605 & 606/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2011-12 Shivratan Motilalji Rathi Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Jalna. Huf, Rathi Rathi & Co., 501-504, Akshay Landmarks, Opp. Pu La Garden, Sinhagad Road, Jalna- 411030. Pan : Aaehr5318G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Miss Smruti Sabnis Revenue By Shri Akhilesh Srivastva : Date Of Hearing 24.07.2025 : Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 21.10.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. There Is Delay Of 64 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit For Condonation That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeals Within The Prescribed Time Limit. Ld. Dr Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection To Condone The Delay, Therefore We Condone The Delay Of 64 Days & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals. 3. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 4. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.605/Pun/2025 For Assessment Year 2008-09 As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Miss Smruti Sabnis
Section 142(1)Section 142ASection 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 249(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

appeal filed by the Appellant based on the provisions of Section 249(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 without providing an opportunity of being heard even though the said provisions do not apply in the present case. Ground 3. Learned CIT(A) has erred in maintaining the addition made

Shivratan Motilalji Rathi HUF, Pune vs. ITO, Jalna

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

ITA 604/PUN/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.604/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Shivratan Motilalji Rathi Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Jalna. Huf, Rathi Rathi & Co., 501-504, Akshay Landmarks, Opp. Pu La Garden, Sinhagad Road, Jalna- 411030. Pan : Aaehr5318G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Miss Smruti Sabnis Revenue By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2025 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.10.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “Ground 1. The Appellant Requests Your Honor To Condone The Delay Of 64 Days In Filing The Appeal As The Delay Was Due To Unforeseen Circumstances Beyond The Control Of The Appellant.

For Appellant: Miss Smruti SabnisFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva
Section 142(1)Section 142ASection 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

appeal filed by the Appellant based on the provisions of Section 249(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 without providing an opportunity of being heard even though the said provisions do not apply in the present case. Ground 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, amend