← 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

Rajeev Kumar Gupta, Muzaffarpur vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Muzf., Muzzaffarpur

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

ITA 162/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan(Through Virtual Hearing At Kolkata) आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.162/Pat/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Rajeev Kumar Gupta, Vs Ito, Ward-1(2), Muzaffarpur Sakra Dholi, Majholia, Chandanpatti, Muzaffarpur Pan No. :Aoxpg 2700 A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Assessee Present In Person राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 18/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Id. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 23.12.2024 For The Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. The Assessee Rajeev Kumar Gupta, Present In Person & Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ld.Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 33 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported With An Affidavit Stating Therein Sufficient Reason For Delay In Filing The Appeal, Which Are Not Found To Be False & Also The Ld.Sr. Dr Did Not Object To Condone The Delay. Accordingly, The Delay Of 33 Days In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing.

For Appellant: Assessee present in personFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr.DR

justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of Assessing Officer for readjudication afresh after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to produce the documentary evidence to substantiate his claim in the readjudication proceedings before the Assessing Officer, positively

Anil Kumar Pandey, Aurangabad vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Aurangabad

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

ITA 625/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan(Through Virtual Hearing At Kolkata) आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.625/Pat/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Anil Kumar Pandey, Vs Ito, Ward-3(3), Aurangabad, Shop No.46, Parishad Bazar, Bihar Aurangabad, Bihar-824101 Pan No. :Bbkpp 7192 Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Nishant Maitin, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 18/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18/06/2025

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Maitin, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr.DR

appeal is admitted for hearing. 4. Ld. AR submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has passed the impugned order ex-parte without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It was submitted that if one more opportunity is provided to the assessee to represent the case before the ld.CIT ... interest of justice, we restore the issues to the file of Id. CIT(A) for readjudication afresh after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the CIT(A) providing documentary evidence to substantiate his claim, positively. 3 7. In the result, appeal