← 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

Shri Krushna Gau Seva Charitable Trust, Naliyeri Moli, Ta. Gir Gadhada, Dist. Junagadh vs. The CIT (Exemption) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 534/RJT/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Feb 2026AY 2025-26

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 534/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2025-26) Shri Krushna Gau Seva Charitable Vs. Cit(Exemption), Trust, Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Naliyeri Mol, Naliyeri Moli, Bhavan, Nr. Sachin Tower, 100Ft Ta. Gir Gadhada Road, Anandnagar-Prahladnagar Junagadh 362530 Road, Ahmedabad-380015 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aazts5830M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Jignesh Parikh, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit(Dr) : 29/01/2026 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 11/02/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Jignesh Parikh, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

control of the trustees.” Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the assessee was not provided sufficient opportunity of being heard by the Ld. CIT(E) and so the assessee could not plead the case successfully before the Ld.CIT(E). According to principles of natural ... justice and fair play the affected party should be given sufficient opportunity of being heard to represent the case. In the interest of justice, we set aside the impugned order and restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking

Paramjot Kaur, Punjab vs. The Income Tax Officer, Chandigarh

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for Statistical Purposes

ITA 995/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 995/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Paramjot Kaur, The Ito, 2208, Phase Vii, बनाम Chandigarh Sector 61, Vs. Mohali 160062 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No. Aiapk8703A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Harish Nayyar, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15.01.2026 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2026 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am :

For Appellant: Sh. Harish Nayyar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

order and the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer without going into the details and affording an opportunity of being heard which is against the principle of natural justice. Further, the notice sent by the CIT(A) was serviced on the e-mail portal ... simply confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer without going into the merits of the case and affording an opportunity of being heard which is against the principle of natural justice. 8. We have considered the findings given by the authorities below and the written submissions as well

Parveen Kumar, 229, Village Manakpur-II, Tehsil Jagadhri, Haryana vs. Prabhjot Kaur, PCIT Panchkula, Chandigarh

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 576/CHANDI/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: the Tribunal as pointed out by the Registry. Considering that the issue involved is purely legal in nature, and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], which emphasizes that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we condone the delay in filing these appeals.3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case f

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

same. 1.4 The Worthy Pr. CIT has conducted the impugned proceedings u/s 263 in extreme haste and without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 2. That the appellant craves leave for any addition, deletion or amendment in the grounds of appeal on or before the disposal ... novo assessment after conducting requisite enquiries and proper verification with regard to taxability of interest on enhanced compensation, after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 15. Now the assessee is before us, challenging the order passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT on the grounds mentioned hereinabove