← 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

Mohit Sukhija, New Delhi vs. Nfa, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4661/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwalmohit Sukhija, Nfa, 7D, Pocket A, Vikas Puri, New Delhi New Delhi-110018 Vs. Pan: Andps5089H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Anil Chopra, Ca Department By Sh.Virender Kumar Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 07.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.05.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”], Dated 29.08.2023 In Appeal No. Nfac/2016-17/10164171 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Short) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 343 Days. For The Delay, Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Wherein It Is Stated That Assessee Was Out Of Country When The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Was Passed & Served Through E-Filing Portal. Therefore, He Was Not Aware About The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) & The Appeal Could Not Be Filed In Time. He Also Filed The Copy Of The Passport Having Visa & Details Of Travelling Outside India, In Support Of The Claim That He Was Out Of India During The Period When The Order Was Served Upon Him. He Further Stated That As Soon He Returned To India & Came To Know About The Order Of Ld. Cit (A), Immediately He Filed The Appeal & Therefore, Prayed For The Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeal.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

been filed under section 44AD of Income Tax Act, 1961 and book s are not maintained. 4. That appellant has not got opportunity of being heard in the course of assessment proceedings for the sake of natural justice. 5. That the appellant craves to leave to add, alter, modify, amend

DCIT, Circle - 19(1), Delhi vs. Atul Goel, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed being devoid of any merit

ITA 4145/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.4145/िद"ी/2024(िन.व. 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-19(1), 2Nd Floor, C R Building, I.P Estate, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi 110002 बनाम Vs. Atul Goel, S-33, Panchsheel Park, Hauz Khas, Delhi 110017 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aadpg-2222-P Co No. 111/Del/2024 (A.Y.2012-13) In Ita No. 4145/Del/2024 Atul Goel, S-33, Panchsheel Park, Hauz Khas, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aadpg-2222-P बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-19(1), 2Nd Floor, C R Building, I.P Estate, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate & Ms. Uma Upadhyay, Chartered Accountant Department By : Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/03/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 30/05/2025

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate & Ms. Uma Upadhyay, CharteredFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

arbitrary manner without appreciating that the information was analyzed by the assessing officer and a speaking order was passed accordingly after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee." (v) "Whether in facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting

Pawan Kumar Jain, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-38(8), New Delhi

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

ITA 1745/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarma No.136/Del/2022 (In Ita No.1745/Del/2021) (Assessment Year : 2012-13) & Pawan Kumar Jain, Vs. Ito, Ward 38 (8), C-88, Prashant Vihar, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 085. (Pan: Acxpj0814C) (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant/Assessee By : Ms. Chandrima Choudhary, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.05.2025 Date Of Order : 30.05.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Misc. Application Is Filed By The Applicant/Assessee Against The Order Of The Tribunal In Ita No.1745/Del/2021 Dated 28.02.2022 For Assessment Year 2012-13 For Recalling Of The Said Order. 2. At The Outset, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That The Assessee Filed The Appeal Before Itat, Bench-G Vide Ita No. 1745/Del/2021 & Accordingly, The Matter Is Fixed For Hearing On 28.02.2022, However, During The Hearing

For Appellant: Ms. Chandrima Choudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 69A

confirmed the addition made the AO and dismissed the assessee’s appeal 3 MA No.136/Del/2022 and ITA No.1745/Del/2021 without providing any reasonable opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, he pleaded that the matter may be restored back to the ld. CIT (A) to decide the grounds afresh on merits ... decided the assessee’s appeal ex-parte. In our considered view and in the interest of justice, assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard on merit. Therefore, we remit the file back to the ld. CIT (A) to decide the issues on merit