← 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

Maharashtra Cricket Association, Pune vs. ACIT(E), Pune

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

ITA 975/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1387 & 975/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Maharashtra Cricket Association, Acit(E), Pune Gahunje Stadium, At Post Gahunje, Thehsil-Maval, Pune-412101 Vs. Pan : Aaatm2192D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri C.H. Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 16-01-2025 Date Of 11-04-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Dated 22.04.2024 & 12.03.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)”] Pertaining To Assessment Years (“Ays”) 2011-12 & 2012-13. Since The Issue(S) Involved Are Identical, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri C.H. Naniwadekar &For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 11Section 2(15)

activity in the nature of trade commerce or business and was hit by the amendment to section 2(15). Therefore after giving an opportunity of being heard, CIT,1, Pune vide its order dated 30.07.2012 cancelled the registration u/s12A from AY.2009-10 onwards for the detailed reasons discussed in the said ... fact and law in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in AUDA’s case (supra) after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to make his further submissions before the Ld. CIT(A) to substantiate its case

I Progress Foundation Aurangabad, Aurangabad vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

ITA 855/PUN/2024[Not Applicable]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1187 & 855/Pun/2024 I Progress Foundation, 22/1, Mayur Complex, N-6, Cidco, Aurangabad-431001 Vs. Pan : Aabai4359L अपीलार्थी / Appellant Assessee By : Department By : Date Of Hearing : Date Of Pronouncement : Cit (Exemption), Pune प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Shri Abhay Shastri Shri Amol Khairnar 14-01-2025 11-04-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Two Separate Order(S) Both Dated 05.03.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune [“Cit(E)"] Whereby He Rejected The Application Of The Assessee Filed Before Him In Form No. 10Ab U/S 12A(1)(Ac) (Iii) & Section 80G(5)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The "Act") Filed On 30.09.2023. For The Sake Of Convenience Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)(iii)

comply by the due date i.e. 01.03.2024. However, the assessee neither submitted explanation to the said show cause notice nor availed the opportunity of being heard. The Ld. CIT(E), therefore, observed that since, the assessee has not furnished any explanation to the discrepancies communicated to it, it is presumed ... matter may be set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) to adjudicate the same afresh after affording one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. The Ld. DR conceded to the above proposition of the Ld. AR. 7. We have considered the rival submissions

Maharashtra Cricket Association, Pune vs. ACIT(E), Pune

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

ITA 1387/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1387 & 975/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Maharashtra Cricket Association, Acit(E), Pune Gahunje Stadium, At Post Gahunje, Thehsil-Maval, Pune-412101 Vs. Pan : Aaatm2192D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri C.H. Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 16-01-2025 Date Of 11-04-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Dated 22.04.2024 & 12.03.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)”] Pertaining To Assessment Years (“Ays”) 2011-12 & 2012-13. Since The Issue(S) Involved Are Identical, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri C.H. Naniwadekar &For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 11Section 2(15)

activity in the nature of trade commerce or business and was hit by the amendment to section 2(15). Therefore after giving an opportunity of being heard, CIT,1, Pune vide its order dated 30.07.2012 cancelled the registration u/s12A from AY.2009-10 onwards for the detailed reasons discussed in the said ... fact and law in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in AUDA’s case (supra) after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to make his further submissions before the Ld. CIT(A) to substantiate its case

I Progress Foundation Aurangabad, Aurangabad vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

ITA 1187/PUN/2024[Not Applicable]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1187 & 855/Pun/2024 I Progress Foundation, 22/1, Mayur Complex, N-6, Cidco, Aurangabad-431001 Vs. Pan : Aabai4359L अपीलार्थी / Appellant Assessee By : Department By : Date Of Hearing : Date Of Pronouncement : Cit (Exemption), Pune प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Shri Abhay Shastri Shri Amol Khairnar 14-01-2025 11-04-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Two Separate Order(S) Both Dated 05.03.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune [“Cit(E)"] Whereby He Rejected The Application Of The Assessee Filed Before Him In Form No. 10Ab U/S 12A(1)(Ac)(Iii) & Section 80G(5)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The "Act") Filed On 30.09.2023. For The Sake Of Convenience Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)(iii)

comply by the due date i.e. 01.03.2024. However, the assessee neither submitted explanation to the said show cause notice nor availed the opportunity of being heard. The Ld. CIT(E), therefore, observed that since, the assessee has not furnished any explanation to the discrepancies communicated to it, it is presumed ... matter may be set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) to adjudicate the same afresh after affording one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. The Ld. DR conceded to the above proposition of the Ld. AR. 7. We have considered the rival submissions