← 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

Saileshkumar Maganlal Patel, Surendranagar vs. The ITO Ward-2, Surendranagar.

In the result, both appeals of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 442/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.441 & 442/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2016-17 Saileshkumar Maganlal Patel The Ito, Ward-2 बनाम Parshavnath Chambers, Surendranagar Navyug Cinema Road, Vs. Surendranagar, 263310, Gujarat Pan : Acdpp2564P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

depends upon the outcome of the appeal in quantum proceedings. Considering the above facts, we note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). We note that the ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee ... note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, we restore the matter

Shaileshkumar Maganlal Patel, Surendranagar vs. The ITO Ward-2, Surendranagar.

In the result, both appeals of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 441/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.441 & 442/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2016-17 Saileshkumar Maganlal Patel The Ito, Ward-2 बनाम Parshavnath Chambers, Surendranagar Navyug Cinema Road, Vs. Surendranagar, 263310, Gujarat Pan : Acdpp2564P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

depends upon the outcome of the appeal in quantum proceedings. Considering the above facts, we note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). We note that the ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee ... note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, we restore the matter

Anisha Charitable Foundation, Patna vs. CIT (Exemption), Patna

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

ITA 71/PAT/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Jun 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.71/Pat/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2025-2026) Anishal Charitable Foundation Vs Cit(Exemtpion), Patna 402, Niharika Apartment, Bailey Road, Sheikhpura, Patna Pan No. :Aavca 8490 L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Aman Raja, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajat Datta, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Id. Cit(Exemption), Patna, Dated 26.12.2024, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Exm/F/Exm45/2024-25/1071595945(1) For The Assessment Year 2025-2026, Denying The Assessee The Benefit Of Recognition U/S.80G Of The Act. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Ld. Cit€ Has Denied The Recognition U/S.80G Of The Act On The Ground That The Assessee Has Filed Wrong Form. It Was The Submission That The Assessee Has Been Granted Permanent Registration U/S.12A Of The Act. It Was The Prayer That The Issue May Be Restored To The File Of The Ld. Cit(E) With Liberty To Assessee To Rectify The Mistakes/Defects In The Application For The Recognition U/S.80G Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Aman Raja, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Datta, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80G

interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of ld.CIT(E) for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. Ld.CIT(E) shall grant the assessee adequate opportunity to rectify any mistakes/defects in its application for recognition u/s.80G of the Act. We directed

Jivrajbhai Mavjibhai Pa vs. Iya, Suratvs.Income Tax Officer Ward 3(3)(1) Surat, Ayakar Bhawan, Surat

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

ITA 1102/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1120/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Jivrajbhai Mavjibhai Pavsiya 204, Amizara Palace, B/H Vs. Gabani Kidney Hospital, Lal Darwaja, Surat-395006 Income Tax Officer Ward No.3(3)(2), Surat, Ayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate Nr. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395 001 स्थायीलेखासं. / जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adwpp 2625 F (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Kamlesh Pandya, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Respondent By Ms. Neerja Sharma, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 08/05/2025 उ‌द्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 30/06/2025 आदेश / Order Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, 'The Act') Dated 30.08.2024 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi /Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short, 'Cit(A)'] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer (In Short, 'Ao') U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 27.12.2019. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: "1. Learned Cit(A) Erred In Making Order By Upholding Addition Made By Ito Without Considering Facts, Circumstances Of Our Case & Submission Made By Us During Appeal Proceedings Even Though Source Of Cash Deposit Already Explained, Therefore Section 69A Not Applicable In Our Case.

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

conclusion regarding the nature and source of cash deposit of Rs.13,50,000/- during demonetization period. The AO shall grant adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ground Nos.1 to 3 are, accordingly, allowed for statistical purposes. 7. Ground No. 4 pertains to levy