← 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

Ashokkumar Bhulabhai Rathod, Mahuva vs. NFAC, Delhi Current Jurisdiction - ITO Ward 1 Bardoli, Bardoli

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

ITA 1255/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1253 To 1255/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Ashokkumar Bhulabhai Rathod Nfac, Delhi Current Opp. Reliance Tower, Vs Jurisdiction-Income Tax Officer, Karcheliya, Mahuva-394 240 . Ward No.1, Bardoli, Income-Tax Office, 2Nd Floor, Opp. Jalaram Temple, Station Road, Bardoli- 394 601 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abxpr 3858 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Ms. Neerja Sharma, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 07/05/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 19/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals By The Assessee Emanate From The Separate Orders Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, ‘The Act’) All Dated 30.09.2024 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac),Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short, ‘Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Years (Ay) 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16, Which In Turn Arose Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao’) U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Dated 24.05.2023, 18.05.2023 & 19.05.2023. Since Facts Are Same Except Variance Of Amounts, With Consent Of The Parties, The Appeals Were Heard Together & A Common

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in passing ex-parte order without giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred ... proper service of notice. Hence, the order of CIT(A) was passed without ITA No.1253-1255/SRT/2024/AYs.13-14-15-16 Ashokkumar B Rathod giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to assessee. This is in clear violation of principles of natural justice. He submitted that appellant is ready with all the details in support

Ashokkumar Bhulabhai Rathod, Mahuva vs. NFAC, Delhi Current Jurisdiction - ITO Ward - 1, Bardoli

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

ITA 1254/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1253 To 1255/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Ashokkumar Bhulabhai Rathod Nfac, Delhi Current Opp. Reliance Tower, Vs Jurisdiction-Income Tax Officer, Karcheliya, Mahuva-394 240 . Ward No.1, Bardoli, Income-Tax Office, 2Nd Floor, Opp. Jalaram Temple, Station Road, Bardoli- 394 601 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abxpr 3858 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Ms. Neerja Sharma, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 07/05/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 19/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals By The Assessee Emanate From The Separate Orders Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, ‘The Act’) All Dated 30.09.2024 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac),Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short, ‘Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Years (Ay) 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16, Which In Turn Arose Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao’) U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Dated 24.05.2023, 18.05.2023 & 19.05.2023. Since Facts Are Same Except Variance Of Amounts, With Consent Of The Parties, The Appeals Were Heard Together & A Common

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in passing ex-parte order without giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred ... proper service of notice. Hence, the order of CIT(A) was passed without ITA No.1253-1255/SRT/2024/AYs.13-14-15-16 Ashokkumar B Rathod giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to assessee. This is in clear violation of principles of natural justice. He submitted that appellant is ready with all the details in support

Ashokkumar Bhulabhai Rathod, Mahuva vs. NFAC, Delhi Current Jurisdiction - ITO Ward 1, Bardoli

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

ITA 1253/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1253 To 1255/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Ashokkumar Bhulabhai Rathod Nfac, Delhi Current Opp. Reliance Tower, Vs Jurisdiction-Income Tax Officer, Karcheliya, Mahuva-394 240 . Ward No.1, Bardoli, Income-Tax Office, 2Nd Floor, Opp. Jalaram Temple, Station Road, Bardoli- 394 601 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abxpr 3858 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Ms. Neerja Sharma, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 07/05/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 19/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals By The Assessee Emanate From The Separate Orders Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, ‘The Act’) All Dated 30.09.2024 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac),Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short, ‘Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Years (Ay) 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16, Which In Turn Arose Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao’) U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Dated 24.05.2023, 18.05.2023 & 19.05.2023. Since Facts Are Same Except Variance Of Amounts, With Consent Of The Parties, The Appeals Were Heard Together & A Common

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in passing ex-parte order without giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred ... proper service of notice. Hence, the order of CIT(A) was passed without ITA No.1253-1255/SRT/2024/AYs.13-14-15-16 Ashokkumar B Rathod giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to assessee. This is in clear violation of principles of natural justice. He submitted that appellant is ready with all the details in support

Danadjeane, Pondicherry vs. ITO, Ward-1, Pondicherry

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

ITA 1095/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1095/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2017-18 Danadjeane, Income Tax Officer, No.28, Pillaiar Koil Street, Ward-1 Embalam, Pondicherry. Pondichery [Pan: Aqipd2440H] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.P.M.Kathir, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.P.M.Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT

that the Ld.First Appellate Authority has also confirmed the addition by passing an ex-parte order Page - 2 - of 5 without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard. It was accordingly pleaded that in the interest of justice the matter may be restored back to the file of Ld.AO for readjudication ... placed upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TIN box 249 ITR 216. The Ld. AO shall give opportunities of being heard to the assesse and it shall be bounden upon the assesse to comply with the notices issued