“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

Gurpreet Singh Bhatia, Punjabi Bagh Extension vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-44(6), New Delhi, Civic Centre

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

ITA 958/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Gurpreet Singh Bhatia, Vs Income-Tax Officer, House No.11, Street No.23, Ward-44(6), Punjabi Bagh Extension, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 026. Pan: Aiips0365E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Shivam Malik, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ram Krishan Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.05.2025 Order Per Vimal Kumar, Jm: This Appeal By The Appellant Assessee Is Against The Order Dated 3Rd January, 2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) In Appeal Arising Out Of The Order Dated 24.12.2019 U/S 143(3) Of The Act Of The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-44(6), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Ao’), For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee E-Filed Itr For The Assessment Year 2017-18 On 04.11.2017 Declaring The Income At Rs.13,27,320/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass For The Reasons, ‘Abnormal Cash Deposit During Demonetization Period.’ Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Dated 16.08.2018 Was Issued. Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act Dated 02.05.2019 Containing A Detailed Questionnaire Was Issued. Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act Dated 03.06.2019 Was Issued, But, The Assessee Did Not File The Reply. On The Basis Of The Information, The Ld. Ao Completed The Proceedings Vide Order Dated 24.12.2019 By Making An Addition Of Rs.1,08,40,000/-.

For Appellant: Shri Shivam Malik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishan Meena, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

restored to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with the law, after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 13.05.2025. (SHAMIM

Sangeeta Kathuria, Gurgaon vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 49(1), Delhi

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

ITA 5888/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Sangeet Kathuria, Vs. Ito, D-49, 2Nd Floor, Suncity Ward-49(1), Sector-54, Chakarpur Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Bjnpk2905B

For Appellant: Shri Karanjot Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)

file of the ld AO for de novo adjudication in accordance with law. Needless to mention that the assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. With these directions, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Saroj Rustagi, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 63(1), Delhi

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

ITA 4338/DEL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Saroj Rustogi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 8889, Naya Mohalla, Pul Ward-63(1), Bangash Azad Market, Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aczpr8876J

For Appellant: Shri Jaspal Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 144

Ground Nos. 1, 3 and 6 raised by the assessee are challenging the non-granting of proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Since, this goes to the root of the issue, we deem it fit to address the same first. Saroj

Mangu Singh Through Legal Heir Rajendra Tyagi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Ghaziabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3921/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 144Section 147

legal heir of the deceased. Considering this peculiar aspect of the matter this Bench deems it fit and proper to grant further opportunity of being heard to the assessee to represent its case before the First Appellate Authority effectively in order to prevent the miscarriage of justice. Thus, this appeal ... file of the Ld. CIT(A) for consideration of the same afresh and to pass a reasoned order by granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee (the legal heir of the deceased assessee) and upon considering the evidence on record or any other evidence which the assessee

The District Magistrate, Badaun vs. ITO (TDS), Moradabad

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

ITA 4775/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year : 2010-11 The District Magistrate, Badaun, Vs. Ito (Tds), Collectorate Compound, Badaun, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Uttar Pradesh – 243601 Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh-244001 (Pan: Lknd0606E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Sh. Ram Kishan Meena, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 15.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15.05.2025 Order Per Shamim Yahya, Am : This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.01.2019 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Moradabad. 2. In This Case, Order Dated 31.03.2017 Was Passed U/S. 206C(6A) Of The Act By The Ito-Tds, Moradabad For The Assessment Year 2010-11 By Imposing The Total Tax Liability Of Rs. 8,13,688/- & Assessed The Income On The Same Amount. In Appeal, There Is A Delay Of 350 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A), Ld. Cit(A) Noted The Following Submission Of The Assessee:- “There Was A Delay Of 350 Days & It Was Due To The Fact That Order Was Served On D.M. Office & Which Was Not Conveyed To Mining Officer Mr. Narender Kumar. It Came To His Knowledge In September, 2017 & Due To The Fact That The Time Was Consumed In Empanelment & Appointment Of Counsel. That Further The Delay Was Due To The Procedure Of Online Registration For Filing Appeal.”

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Ram Kishan Meena, Sr. DR

Section 206C

issues in dispute to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the directions to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the 2 | P a g e assessee and pass a speaking order. Ld. DR did not have any objection to the said proposition

Hridayesh Kumar Verma, Banda vs. Income Tax Officer, Banda

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Application is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 46/ALLD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad14 May 2025AY 2018-19