← 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

Presidency Merchants Private Limited, Kolkata, West Bengal vs. Office of Income Tax Officer, Kolkata, West Bengal

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

ITA 2186/KOL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2186/Kol/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-2010) Presidency Merchants Pvt Ltd Vs Ito Ward-9(3), Kolkata No.101, India Exchange Place Dalhousie, Writers Building, Kolkata Pan No. :Aaecp 6904 B (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.03.2024, Passed By The Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1062704762(1), For The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. On Perusal Of The Appeal Record, We Find That The Appeal Of The Assessee Delayed By 160 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application Supported By An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein Sufficient & Plausible Reasons For Delay & The Reasons Are Not Found To Be False. Accordingly, The Delay Of 160 Days In Filing The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Hereby Condoned & The Appeal Is Disposed Off Accordingly.

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.N.Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 263

issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication afresh. The assessee shall be afforded adequate opportunity of being heard. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 07/05/2025

Canning Mahila Co-Operppative Credit Society Ltd, Canning vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolkata

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

ITA 2033/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2033/Kol/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Canning Mahila Cooperative Vs Ito, Ward-26(4), Kolkata Credit Society Limited, Cinema Road, Canning Town Canning Sought 24 Parganas West Bengal Pan No. :Aacac 2720 L (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Ms. Swagata Ghosh Das, Ex- Chairman Of The Assessee Society. रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Praveen Kishore, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.05.2022, Passed By The Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1042955890(1), For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. Ms. Swagata Ghosh Das, Ex-Chairman Of The Assessee Society Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Praveen Kishore, Sr. Dr Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. On Perusal Of The Appeal Record, We Find That The Appeal Of The Assessee Delayed By 819 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein Sufficient & Plausible Reasons For Delay & The Reasons Are Not Found To Be False. Accordingly

For Appellant: Ms. Swagata Ghosh Das, Ex-For Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, Sr. DR

justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of ld. AO for readjudication afresh after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee is directed to cooperate in the readjudication proceedings before the Assessing Officer positively. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee

Sri Maharaja Refineries, Erode vs. ACIT, Circle-I, Erode

ITA 1956/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1955 & 1956/Chny/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Sri Maharaja Refineries, # 128, Bhavani Road, Erode-638 004. Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Erode. Pan: Aaffs-8491-N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे / Appellant By प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) : Mr. R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & Ms.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 07.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Both Dated 07.06.2024 For

For Respondent: Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153(5)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92

requires verification of any issue by way of submission of any document by the assessee or any other person or where an opportunity of being heard is to be provided to the assessee, the order giving effect to the said order under section 250 or section 254 or section ... requires verification of any issue by way of submission of any document by the assessee or any other person or where an opportunity of being heard is to be provided to the assessee, the order giving effect to the said order under section 250 or section 254 or section

Sri Maharaja Refineries, Erode vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Erode

ITA 1955/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1955 & 1956/Chny/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Sri Maharaja Refineries, # 128, Bhavani Road, Erode-638 004. Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Erode. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Pan: Aaffs-8491-N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे / Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & Ms.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 07.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Both Dated 07.06.2024 For

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Mr. R.Clement Ramesh Kumar
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153(5)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92

requires verification of any issue by way of submission of any document by the assessee or any other person or where an opportunity of being heard is to be provided to the assessee, the order giving effect to the said order under section 250 or section 254 or section ... requires verification of any issue by way of submission of any document by the assessee or any other person or where an opportunity of being heard is to be provided to the assessee, the order giving effect to the said order under section 250 or section 254 or section