← 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. M/S Senthil Murugan Jewellers Private Limited, Madurai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1557/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1557/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs M/S.Senthil Murugan Jewellers Income Tax, Private Limited, Central Circle-1, Madurai. 106-108, South Avani Moola Street, Madurai – 625001 Pan: Aajcs8546F Appellant/ Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Mr. M.K.Rangasamy – Ca Revenue By Mr. S. Senthil Kumaran – Cit Date Of Hearing 26/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17/03/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Chennai-19 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 Dated 20.03.2025. 2. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Erroneous On Facts & In Law

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250

hereby set-aside and the matter is restored back to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 10. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court

Sanjay Shamrao Sawant, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 42(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 469/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year : 2016-17 Sanjay Shamrao Sawant, Income Tax Officer, Flat No. B-3/701, 7Th Floor, Ward-35(3)(1), [Presently – Ito, Ward-42(3)(3)] Millenium Towers, Vs. Mumbai. Near Ryan School, Sector-9, Sanpada, Navi Mumbai-400705. Pan : Bdyps3261H (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Shri Aditya Rai, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-03-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 17-03-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Addl/Jcit(A)-Kochi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 18-09-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Was Any Adjournment Application Filed. However, Considering The Matter, We Find That No Useful Purpose Would Be Served In Adjourning The Matter Any Further & To Decide The Matter Based On Material Available On Record.

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

appropriate to set aside the matter to the file of the AO to decide the same afresh as per law, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also direct the assessee to fully co-operate with the AO for expeditious disposal of the matter

Mr. Sharafat Sohrab Shaikh, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 26(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 8014/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Sharafat Sohrab Shaikh Vs Income Tax Officer, Room No. 1210, Sangam Ward 26(3)(2), Nagar, Chikhalwadi Saltpent Mumbai Road, Antop Hill Wadala East, Mumbai, Maharashtra, 400037 (Pan: Bfbps0696P) Appellant Respondent Present For: Assessee By : Shri Sachin Dere, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Pradipsinh Saktavat, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1058553234(1) Dated 07.12.2023 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Ward 26(3)(2), Mumbai, U/S. 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 23.12.2019 For Ay 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. The Appellant By Way Of The Aforesaid Appeal Is Challenging The Legality & Validity Of The Impugned Order Dated 7Th December, 2023 Passed By The Hon'Ble Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department For A.Y.: 2017-2018. 2 Sharafat Sohrab Shaikh Ay 2017-18 2. The Appellant Is Actively Involved In The Operation & Management Of A Grahak Seva Kendra (Customer Service Center), Which Is Provided By M/S. Vakrangee Limited To The Eligible Candidate Who Meets The Prescribed Eligibility Criteria Set Forth By The Company. The Said M/S. Vakrangi Limited Has Issued The Appellant Official Certification To Carry Out & Run The Grahak Seva Kendra & Its Activities As Per The Terms & Conditions Decided By The Said M/S. Vakrangi Limited.

For Appellant: Shri Sachin Dere, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradipsinh Saktavat, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 69A

Assessing Officer instead of ld. CIT(A), so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Needless to say that assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. We also direct the assessee to be diligent in making all hissubmissions, so as to comply with the notices for the hearing for effective