← 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

Noslar International Limited, Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, C.R Building, Delhi

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

ITA 413/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmannoslar International Limited (In Liquidation), Vs. Cit (Appeals), 3/14, Mohan Apartments, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 026. (Pan : Aaccn1916B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Maitreyee Mishra, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.06.2025 Date Of Order : 30.06.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 21.01.2025 For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, It Is Brought To Our Notice That No Documentary Evidences Were Submitted Before Ld. Cit (A) Even Though Assessee Was Given Several Opportunities & Assessee Has Not Complied To The Details Of Notices Issued By Ld. Cit (A), Which Are Placed At Page 3 Of The Impugned Order.

For Appellant: Ms. Maitreyee Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

file of ld. CIT (A) to decide the issue on merit after getting proper documentary evidences from the assessee, after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Further we direct assessee also to submit relevant information and comply to the notices issued by the lower authorities without seeking

Mahabir S/O Sh Ram Niwas, Rohtak vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Narnaul

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1779/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalmahabir Income Tax Officer, S/O Sh. Ram Niwas Nangal Ward, Narnaul. Kalia, Narnaul-123001 Vs. Pan:Cgkpm9657H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ca Pranshu Singhal Department By Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.06.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)-Delhi (‘The Cit(A) In Short) Dated 26.02.2024 In Appeal No. Nfac/2013-14/10168587 For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 24 Days For Which An Affidavit Along With Condonation Petition Was Filed By The Assessee Wherein It Is Stated That Email-Id Provided In Form No.35 Was Different & The Notices Sent By The Ld. Cit(A) Were On Different Email-Id, Therefore, The Notices For Hearing Could Not Be Served Upon The Assessee. Therefore, Neither The Assessee Could Be Able To Appear Before Ld. Cit(A) Nor Have Any Knowledge About The Passing Of The Order By Ld. Cit(A). When The Assessee Received Notice For Pending Penalty Proceedings, He Contacted With Its Counsel Who Intimated About The Appellate Prodder. Under These Facts & Circumstances, It Is Requested That The Delay In Filing The Appeal Be Condoned & Appeal Be Admitted For Adjudication.

Section 147

justice, the issues in this appeal is sent back to the file of AO to pass order denovo fresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to file all the details and evidences in support of his claim before

Shree Rama Rajya Parishad, Palwal Faridabad vs. Income Tax Offficer, Faridabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assesse are partly allowed

ITA 5704/DEL/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5704/Del/2024 (Assessment Year: -----) Shree Rama Rajya Parishad, Commissioner Of Income Near Prem Dairy, Tax (Exemption), By Pass Road, Vs. Chandigarh New Colony, Palwal, Haryana-121101 Pan:Dnqpd2476F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ca Raaj Kumar Sohanpal Rawat Department By Shri N.K. Bansal, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 25.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.06.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh (‘The Cit(E) In Short), Dated 06.08.2024 Rejecting The Application For Registration U/S 12A & 80G Of The Act. As Both The Appeals Are Related To Issue Of Registration U/S 12A & 80G, Thus They Are Decided By A Common Order. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 39 Days For Which An Affidavit Along With Condonation Petition Was Filed By Theof The Assessee Society Namely Ms. Santushti Thapar Wherein It Is Stated That It Had Engaged One Ca Pooja Sharma To Represent & File The Necessary Details Before The Ld. Cit(E). However, Due To Her Pregnancy, She Could Not Be Able To File The Appeals Within Time. Under These Facts & Circumstances, It Is Requested That The Delay In Filing The Appeal Be Condoned & Both The Appeals Be Admitted For Adjudication. Reliance Is Also Placed On The Judgement Of 2 It Nos.5703 & 5704/Del/2024 Shree Rama Rajaya Parishad Vs. Cit Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 Itr 471 (Sc).

Section 12A

will be produced if the matter is remanded back to the file of ld. CIT(E). We are of the view that proper opportunity of being heard was not provided to the assessee and hence, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of CIT(E) and remit

Shree Rama Rajya Parishad, Palwal Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Faridabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assesse are partly allowed

ITA 5703/DEL/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5704/Del/2024 (Assessment Year: -----) Shree Rama Rajya Parishad, Commissioner Of Income Near Prem Dairy, Tax (Exemption), By Pass Road, Vs. Chandigarh New Colony, Palwal, Haryana-121101 Pan:Dnqpd2476F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ca Raaj Kumar Sohanpal Rawat Department By Shri N.K. Bansal, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 25.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.06.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh (‘The Cit(E) In Short), Dated 06.08.2024 Rejecting The Application For Registration U/S 12A & 80G Of The Act. As Both The Appeals Are Related To Issue Of Registration U/S 12A & 80G, Thus They Are Decided By A Common Order. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 39 Days For Which An Affidavit Along With Condonation Petition Was Filed By Theof The Assessee Society Namely Ms. Santushti Thapar Wherein It Is Stated That It Had Engaged One Ca Pooja Sharma To Represent & File The Necessary Details Before The Ld. Cit(E). However, Due To Her Pregnancy, She Could Not Be Able To File The Appeals Within Time. Under These Facts & Circumstances, It Is Requested That The Delay In Filing The Appeal Be Condoned & Both The Appeals Be Admitted For Adjudication. Reliance Is Also Placed On The Judgement Of 2 It Nos.5703 & 5704/Del/2024 Shree Rama Rajaya Parishad Vs. Cit Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 Itr 471 (Sc).

Section 12A

will be produced if the matter is remanded back to the file of ld. CIT(E). We are of the view that proper opportunity of being heard was not provided to the assessee and hence, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of CIT(E) and remit