← 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

Sarjoo Prasad Rajpat, Kanpur vs. Income Tax Officer 1(1)(4), Kanpur

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

ITA 343/LKW/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Subhash Malguria & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2009-10 M/S Sarjoo Prasad Rajpat Vs. Ito-1(1)(4), 55/15, Kahoo Kothi, Kanpur 16/69/ Kanpur Pan:Aaffs5661Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Pradeep Kumar Sahgal, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Deepak Yadav, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.07.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 13.03.2024 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Under Section 154 Passed By The Ld. Ao On 25.04.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Order In Appeal Passed By The Ld Cit(A), Nfac Is Bad In Law & Facts & Deserves To Be Quashed By Allowing The Appeal. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Has Erred In Law & In Facts, In Upholding The Order Of Ld. Ao In Rejecting The Application Made Under Section 154 Of The Act. 3. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Of The Appellant, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Rejecting Contention Of Appellant For Rectification Of Mistake U/S 154 Of The Act On The Ground That Appellant Ought To Have Filed Revised Return Of Income Within Due Date If There Was Any Mistake In Filing Of Original Return Of Income. The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Ought To Have Appreciated That Ao Is Bound To Compute Correct Income As Per Provisions Of The Act & Tax Cannot Be Levied At Higher Amount Due To Error Made While Filing Return Of Income.

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Kumar Sahgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Deepak Yadav, DR
Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 154(8)Section 250

before the ITO but the same had not been accepted by him and he had passed the order without giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard, as there was no basis for the addition. The ld. CIT(A) considered the matter and came to the conclusion that the matter

Chiranjit Karmakar, Mandalpur, Jamuria vs. ITO, Ward - 1(1), Asansol

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

ITA 843/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.843/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Chiranjit Karmakar, Vs Ito, Ward-1(1), Asansol 117 Vill/Po: Mandalpur, Jamuria, Bataspur, Asansol, West Bengal Pan No. : Bpppk 3802 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : Shri Abhijit Rai, Ar नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Shankar Naskar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. Shri Abhijit Rai, Ld.Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Shankar Naskar, Ld. Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. During The Course Of Hearing, 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 The Appeal Afresh So That The Assessee Could Be Able To Produce All The Evidence To Substantiate Its Claim. 4. In Reply, Ld Sr. Dr Vehemently Supported The Orders Of The Assessing Officer & Ld. Cit(A).

For Respondent: Shri Shankar Naskar, 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 the appeal to the file of ld. AO for adjudicating afresh after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. However, looking to the non-cooperation of the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings as well as in the assessment proceedings, I impose a cost

Suvendu Chatterjee, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-48, Kolkata

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

ITA 2690/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2690/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Suvendu Chatterjee, Vs Dcit, Circle-48, Kolkata 8D, Krishna Laha Lane, 1St Floor, Near Aituc Office, Kolkata-700012 Pan No. : Acbpc 4347 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : Shri Miraz D. Shah, Ar नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Shankar Naskar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.04.2018 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-14, Kolkata For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ld.Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Shankar Naskar, Ld. Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Delayed By 92 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported With An Affidavit Stating Sufficient Reasons Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Accordingly, The Delay Of 92 Days Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 4. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Ao Has Made Disallowance Of Rs.19,55,401/- Representing Alleged Service Tax Received But Not Deposited To The Account Of The Government. Consequently, The Ao Has Added The Same As The Income Of The Assessee. It Was The Submission That 2 The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Order Of The Ao Without Considering The Submission Of The Assessee That The Assessee Has Not Received The Said Service Tax Amount. The Assessee Has Also Filed An Affidavit Before Me Which Reads As Under :-

For Respondent: Shri Shankar Naskar, Sr. DR

that this needs verification and, therefore, issues are restored to the file of the ld. AO for verification after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The AO shall examine the bills by which the services taxes have been raised and how much of the said bills have been