← 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

Seikh Sultan Noor, Bhadrak vs. The Income Tax Officer, Bhadrak Ward, Bhadrak

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

ITA 752/CTK/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.752/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-2015) Seikh Sultan Noor Vs Ito, Bhadrak Ward, At/P.O/P.S:- Kacheri Bazar, Bhadrak Dist:-Bhadrak, 756100 Pan No. : Acipn 8070 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra & Shri Narahari Swain, Advs राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijaya Singh, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 18/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date : 18/02/2026 Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Appeal No.Cit(A), Cuttack/10462/2019-20 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Shri P.K.Mishra & Shri Narahari Swain, Ld Ars Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Vijaya Singh, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra and Shri Narahari SwainFor Respondent: Shri Vijaya Singh, Sr DR

justice, we restore the issues in the appeal to the file of ld. Jurisdictional 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 even after issuance of notices to the assessee

National Institute for Community and Child Development, Kalapathara vs. I.T.O. (Exemption), Bhubaneswar, at- Vss Nagar Road

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 653/CTK/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.651, 652 & 653/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-2013 & 2013-2014) Vs Ito (Exemption), Bhubaneswar National Institute For Community & Child Development, C/O- Suresh Chandra Pattnaik, At-Krishna Vihar, Gahiragadia, Po: Kalapathara, Cuttack-754009 Pan No. :Aaatn 5624 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri C.R.Dash, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 18/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18/02/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), All Dated 27.02.2025 For The Assessment Years 2012-2013 & 2013-2014. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee Ex-Parte. It Was The Prayer That The Matter May Be Restored To The File Of The Ao To Decide The Issue Involved In All The Appeals Afresh So That The Assessee Could Be Able To Produce All The Evidence To Substantiate Its Claim. 3. In Reply, Ld Sr.Dr Vehemently Supported The Orders Of The Assessing Officer & Ld. Cit(A). It Was The Submission That If The Issue Is To Be Restored To The File Of Ld.Ao, Then A Cost Should Be Imposed.

For Appellant: Shri C.R.Dash, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

restored the issues in all the three appeals 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 even after issuance of notices to the assessee

National Institutute for Comunity and Child Development, Kalapathra vs. I.T.O(Exemption), Bhubaneswar., at-Vss Nagar Road

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 652/CTK/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.651, 652 & 653/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-2013 & 2013-2014) Vs Ito (Exemption), Bhubaneswar National Institute For Community & Child Development, C/O- Suresh Chandra Pattnaik, At-Krishna Vihar, Gahiragadia, Po: Kalapathara, Cuttack-754009 Pan No. :Aaatn 5624 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri C.R.Dash, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 18/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18/02/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), All Dated 27.02.2025 For The Assessment Years 2012-2013 & 2013-2014. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee Ex-Parte. It Was The Prayer That The Matter May Be Restored To The File Of The Ao To Decide The Issue Involved In All The Appeals Afresh So That The Assessee Could Be Able To Produce All The Evidence To Substantiate Its Claim. 3. In Reply, Ld Sr.Dr Vehemently Supported The Orders Of The Assessing Officer & Ld. Cit(A). It Was The Submission That If The Issue Is To Be Restored To The File Of Ld.Ao, Then A Cost Should Be Imposed.

For Appellant: Shri C.R.Dash, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

restored the issues in all the three appeals 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 even after issuance of notices to the assessee

National Institute for Community and Child Development, Kalapathara vs. I.T.O(Exemption), Bhubaneswar, Vss Nagar Road, Bhubanesawar

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 651/CTK/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.651, 652 & 653/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-2013 & 2013-2014) Vs Ito (Exemption), Bhubaneswar National Institute For Community & Child Development, C/O- Suresh Chandra Pattnaik, At-Krishna Vihar, Gahiragadia, Po: Kalapathara, Cuttack-754009 Pan No. :Aaatn 5624 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri C.R.Dash, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 18/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18/02/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), All Dated 27.02.2025 For The Assessment Years 2012-2013 & 2013-2014. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee Ex-Parte. It Was The Prayer That The Matter May Be Restored To The File Of The Ao To Decide The Issue Involved In All The Appeals Afresh So That The Assessee Could Be Able To Produce All The Evidence To Substantiate Its Claim. 3. In Reply, Ld Sr.Dr Vehemently Supported The Orders Of The Assessing Officer & Ld. Cit(A). It Was The Submission That If The Issue Is To Be Restored To The File Of Ld.Ao, Then A Cost Should Be Imposed.

For Appellant: Shri C.R.Dash, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

restored the issues in all the three appeals 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 even after issuance of notices to the assessee

Tarashankar Das Reprsented Through His Legal Heir Kartik Chandra Das, Mayurbhanj vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Baripada

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

ITA 556/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.556/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Vs Ito Ward-1, Baripada Tarashankar Das Represented Through His Legal Heir Kartik Chandra Das, At-Ward No.10, Baripada, Lalbazar, Baripada, Dist-Mayurbhanj-757001 Pan No. :Acopd 0121 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra & Himanshu Jena, Ars राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 18/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18/02/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 08.07.2025 For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Delayed By 15 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported With An Affidavit Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons For Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal, Which Are Not Found To Be False. Ld. Sr. Dr Did Not Object To Condone The Delay. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay Of 15 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal & Appeal Of The Assessee Is Admitted For Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra & Himanshu Jena, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

justice, we restored the issues in the appeal to the file of ld. jurisdictional 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 even after issuance of notices to the assessee