← 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

Perinba Raja Ramesh, Chennai vs. PCIT, Central Circle-1, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are allowed

ITA 419/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:418 To 421/Chny/2025 धनधाारणवर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19 Shri Perinba Raja Ramesh, Pcit (Central) No.37, Rameswaram Road, T.Nagar, Vs. Chennai-1 Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Adfpp-5207-J] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) (अपीलाथी/Appellant) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:422 To 425/Chny/2025 धनधाारणवर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19 Shri Paulpandianuthamaraj Pcit (Central) Winston, Vs. Chennai-1 No.37, Rameswaram Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Aabpu-5409-L] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) (अपीलाथी/Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Y.Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 147Section 24Section 263Section 263(1)

well as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue as per Clause (a) of Explanation 2 to Sec. 263 and without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the order u/s.263 was passed, to examine a specific issue of allowance of interest u/s.24(b), as according to the Pr.CIT ... erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify

Perinba Raja Ramesh, Chennai vs. PCIT, Central Circle-1, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are allowed

ITA 418/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:418 To 421/Chny/2025 धनधाारणवर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19 Shri Perinba Raja Ramesh, Pcit (Central) No.37, Rameswaram Road, T.Nagar, Vs. Chennai-1 Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Adfpp-5207-J] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) (अपीलाथी/Appellant) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:422 To 425/Chny/2025 धनधाारणवर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19 Shri Paulpandianuthamaraj Pcit (Central) Winston, Vs. Chennai-1 No.37, Rameswaram Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Aabpu-5409-L] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) (अपीलाथी/Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Y.Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 147Section 24Section 263Section 263(1)

well as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue as per Clause (a) of Explanation 2 to Sec. 263 and without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the order u/s.263 was passed, to examine a specific issue of allowance of interest u/s.24(b), as according to the Pr.CIT ... erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify

Manohar Singh, Jaisalmer vs. ACIT/DCIT, Circle, Barmer

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

ITA 725/JODH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Him & Thereby Refusing To Condone The Delay Under Section 249(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Passed On 14.12.2017 By The Ld. Ao. The Assessee Filed The Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) On 04.10.2018, Resulting In A Delay Of 261 Days. The Assessee Had Indicated In Form No. 35 That The Grounds For Condonation Of Delay Would Be Submitted At The Time Of Hearing. However, As Noted By The Ld. Cit(A), No Such Submission Was Made Despite Multiple Opportunities. Consequently, The Appeal Was Dismissed In Limine By The Ld. Cit(A) Without Adjudicating The Matter On Merits. 3. Before Us, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Delay In Filing The Appeal Was Unintentional & Caused Due To Reasonable Circumstances Beyond The Control Of The Assessee. It Was Prayed That The Delay Be Condoned & The Matter Be Restored To The File Of The Ld. Cit(A) For Adjudication On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT(Sr. D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 249(3)

restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the appeal afresh on merits, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open Court

Sparten Granito Pvt. Ltd, Morvi vs. PCIT Rajkot-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 300/RJT/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot02 Jun 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.300/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sparten Granito P. Ltd. Pr.Commissioner Of बनाम S.No.277/ B/H. Siyaram Granito Incometax-1 Jetpur Road, Rangpar Vs. Rajkot. Morbi. Pan : Aaxcs 7650 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Adv-Ar राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 03/03/2025 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02/06/2025 Order Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Correctness Of The Order Dated 31.03.2024, Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax (In Short “Ld Pcit”) Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act'), For The Assessment Year 2018-19.Grievances Raised By The Assessee, Which, Being Interconnected, Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Adv-ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

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 ... back to the file of Ld. PCIT for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the order

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. R K S Builders and Promoters, Ludhiana

Appeal stand allowed accordingly

ITA 817/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.815/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2.आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.816/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.817/Chandi/2024 3. (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit-Central Circle-2 M/S Rks Builders & Promoters बनाम/ Ludhiana. #1189, Near Aarti Chowk Vs. Krishna Nagar, Ludhiana – 141 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aatfr-5642-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Co No.2/Chandi/2025 (In Ita No.815/Chandi/2024) (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Co No.3/Chandi/2025 (In Ita No.816/Chandi/2024) (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.649/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.648/Chandi/2024

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 127Section 132Section 153CSection 292C

senior standing counsel. This also finds mention in para VI of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent. Thus, full opportunity of being heard is available, and in fact was made available to the petitioner herein to represent against the proposed assessments or reassessments. The apprehension expressed by Mr. Bajpai

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. R K S Builders and Promoters, Ludhiana

Appeal stand allowed accordingly

ITA 816/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.815/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2.आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.816/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.817/Chandi/2024 3. (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit-Central Circle-2 M/S Rks Builders & Promoters बनाम/ Ludhiana. #1189, Near Aarti Chowk Vs. Krishna Nagar, Ludhiana – 141 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aatfr-5642-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Co No.2/Chandi/2025 (In Ita No.815/Chandi/2024) (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Co No.3/Chandi/2025 (In Ita No.816/Chandi/2024) (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.649/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.648/Chandi/2024

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 127Section 132Section 153CSection 292C

senior standing counsel. This also finds mention in para VI of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent. Thus, full opportunity of being heard is available, and in fact was made available to the petitioner herein to represent against the proposed assessments or reassessments. The apprehension expressed by Mr. Bajpai

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. R K S Builders and Promoters, Ludhiana

Appeal stand allowed accordingly

ITA 815/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.815/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2.आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.816/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.817/Chandi/2024 3. (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit-Central Circle-2 M/S Rks Builders & Promoters बनाम/ Ludhiana. #1189, Near Aarti Chowk Vs. Krishna Nagar, Ludhiana – 141 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aatfr-5642-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Co No.2/Chandi/2025 (In Ita No.815/Chandi/2024) (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Co No.3/Chandi/2025 (In Ita No.816/Chandi/2024) (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.649/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.648/Chandi/2024

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 127Section 132Section 153CSection 292C

senior standing counsel. This also finds mention in para VI of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent. Thus, full opportunity of being heard is available, and in fact was made available to the petitioner herein to represent against the proposed assessments or reassessments. The apprehension expressed by Mr. Bajpai

Rks Builders Promoters, 1189, Near Aarti Chowk, Krishna Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2 (Jurisdictional AO), Ludhiana, Punjab

Appeal stand allowed accordingly

ITA 649/CHANDI/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Jun 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.815/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2.आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.816/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.817/Chandi/2024 3. (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit-Central Circle-2 M/S Rks Builders & Promoters बनाम/ Ludhiana. #1189, Near Aarti Chowk Vs. Krishna Nagar, Ludhiana – 141 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aatfr-5642-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Co No.2/Chandi/2025 (In Ita No.815/Chandi/2024) (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Co No.3/Chandi/2025 (In Ita No.816/Chandi/2024) (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.649/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.648/Chandi/2024

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 127Section 132Section 153CSection 292C

senior standing counsel. This also finds mention in para VI of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent. Thus, full opportunity of being heard is available, and in fact was made available to the petitioner herein to represent against the proposed assessments or reassessments. The apprehension expressed by Mr. Bajpai