← 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle Salem vs. Selva Stone Export Private Limited, Krishnagiri

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2018-19 is partly-allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2051/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2049, 2050 & 2051/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Selva Stone Export Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Vs. No.27-A, Jagadevi Road, Central Circle, Chennai Bye Pass, Salem Krishnagiri – 635 104. Pan: Aarcs 7703E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Bipin C.N, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Viswanathan, Ca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Bipin C.N, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Viswanathan, CA
Section 133ASection 139Section 142Section 143Section 148

deletion of share application money, ground of appeal No.2 is restored back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording an opportunity of being heard to the respondent assessee company. 9. With regard to other ground of appeal filed by the Revenue, challenging the deletion of addition on account ... Rules. Therefore, this matter also restored to the files of the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the respondent assessee. 16. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2018-19 is partly-allowed for statistical purposes

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle Salem vs. Selva Stone Export Private Limited, Krishnagiri

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2018-19 is partly-allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2050/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2049, 2050 & 2051/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Selva Stone Export Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Vs. No.27-A, Jagadevi Road, Central Circle, Chennai Bye Pass, Salem Krishnagiri – 635 104. Pan: Aarcs 7703E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Bipin C.N, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Viswanathan, Ca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Bipin C.N, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Viswanathan, CA
Section 133ASection 139Section 142Section 143Section 148

deletion of share application money, ground of appeal No.2 is restored back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording an opportunity of being heard to the respondent assessee company. 9. With regard to other ground of appeal filed by the Revenue, challenging the deletion of addition on account ... Rules. Therefore, this matter also restored to the files of the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the respondent assessee. 16. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2018-19 is partly-allowed for statistical purposes

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle Salem vs. Selva Stone Export Private Limited, Krishnagiri

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2018-19 is partly-allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2049/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2049, 2050 & 2051/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Selva Stone Export Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Vs. No.27-A, Jagadevi Road, Central Circle, Chennai Bye Pass, Salem Krishnagiri – 635 104. Pan: Aarcs 7703E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Bipin C.N, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Viswanathan, Ca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Bipin C.N, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Viswanathan, CA
Section 133ASection 139Section 142Section 143Section 148

deletion of share application money, ground of appeal No.2 is restored back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording an opportunity of being heard to the respondent assessee company. 9. With regard to other ground of appeal filed by the Revenue, challenging the deletion of addition on account ... Rules. Therefore, this matter also restored to the files of the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the respondent assessee. 16. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2018-19 is partly-allowed for statistical purposes

Shree Krishna Udyog, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 841/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 841/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shree Krishna Udyog, 17A, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Bhanpuri Industrial Area, Aaykar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492010 Raipur Chhattisgarh, 492001 Pan: Aapfs5659E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G. S. Agrawal, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 16/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

For Appellant: Shri G. S. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 145Section 147aSection 148ASection 148A(1)(a)Section 148A(1)(d)Section 151Section 250

That under the facts and the law, the Ld. AO further erred in passing the Order u/s 148A(1)(d) without allowing opportunity of being heard as no information on which basis the proceedings were initiated, as required u/s 148A(1)(d), were supplied and were supplied later-on vide ... Priyanka Patel, Ld. Sr. DR, drawing our attention to various paras of the assessment order and impugned appellate order, submitted that reasonable opportunities of being heard had been provided to the appellant assessee by the Authorities below; Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A). However, the appellant assessee tactfully ensured noncompliance

Saket Products and Rolling Mill Pvt. Ltd., Surguja vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ambikapur

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

ITA 840/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 840/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19) Saket Products & Rolling Mill Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Private Limited, Aykar Bhawan, Kharsia Road, Subhash Marg, Bhaiyathan Road, Ambikapur, C. G., 497001 Surajpur, Surguja (C.G.) 497229 Pan: Aajcs2709N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G. S. Agrawal, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 16/02/2026 Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri G. S. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 148ASection 250

compliance thereafter though the Ld. Assessing Officer 3 Saket Products and Rolling Mil Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO, Ward-1 (‘AO’) provided three opportunities of being heard on 13.01.2023, 17.02.2023 and 27.02.2023. The part compliance and part explanation of the appellant assessee were not found satisfactory by the Ld. AO; hence ... Ward-1 5. Dr. Priyanka Patel, Ld. Sr. DR, reiterating various paras of the assessment order and impugned appellate order, submitted that reasonable opportunities of being heard had been provided to the appellant assessee by the Authorities below; Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A). However, the appellant assessee tactfully ensured