← 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

Viklang Vikas Foundation, Rasaliya vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 64/RJT/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Apr 2025

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 64/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (Na) (Hybrid Hearing) Viklang Vikas Foundation Vs. Cit(Exemption), Ramdev Nagar, Nr. Bus Station, Room No. 609, Floor – 6, Rasaliya, Nakhatrana Aayakar Bhavan (Vejalpur), Gujarat – 370670 Anandnagar, Prahladnagar Road, Gujarat – 380015 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaatv8066F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri R. B. Shah, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R

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

10AB for seeking fresh registration VIKLANG VIKAS FOUNDATION v. CIT(E) u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the I.T.Act, 1961 without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard and thus the order is bad in law and illegal. 3. The Learned CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad has erred in laws and facts ... note that it is settled law that principle of natural justice and fair play required that effected party should be granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to context this case. Therefore, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remit the mater

Bhartabhai Der, Jetpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Aaykar Bhavan

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

ITA 856/RJT/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Apr 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.856/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Bharatbhai Der, Income Tax Officer, Ward- At Village: Khajuri Gundala, 1(2)(3), Rajkot, Aaykar Vs. Jetpur, Dist. Rajkot 364 485 Bhawan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot 360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Cfppd 5240 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sumit Shingala, Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Dr. Arjunlal Saini Am; Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short “The Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 28.12.2023, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer, Dated 15.10.2019, U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Shingala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 144

comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. Considering the above facts, I note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). I note that the ld. CIT(A) did not discuss ... 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, I restore the matter