← 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

Jainacharya Devendra Muni Shikshan and Chikitsa Shodh Sansthan, Udaipur vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru / ITO, Exemption Ward, Udaipur

The appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 256/JODH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blejainacharya Devendra Muni Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru/ Ito Shikshan & Chikitsa Shodh Exemption Ward Sansthan Udaipur - 313001 N H 8-1 (4) Bhuwana Udaipur (Raj) - 313001 Pan No. Aaatj 5263 G Assessee By Shri Yogesh Pokharna, C.A. (Physical) Shri K.C. Meena, Addl. Cit-Dr (Virtual) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 13.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 28.01.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/Jcit (A)-1 Visakhapatnam [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Jcit Appeal”] Dated 05.03.2025 With Respect To Assessment Year 2016-17 Challenging Therein Disallowance Of Capital Expenditure Amounting To Rs. 24,75,863/- In Corpus Fund Of Rs. 6,09,448/- Without Appreciating The Merits Of The Case.

Section 11(2)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 250

restored back to the file of the JAO with the direction that assessee may be Asst. Year: 2016-17 4 granted adequate opportunity of being heard and a show cause notice may be issued before finalisation of the assessment. The AR for the assessee undertakes to comply all the queries ... consider it deem appropriate to remand the matter back to the file of the JAO to pass de novo assessment after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee after considering the written submissions filed on record and may be filed in the course of fresh assessment proceedings

Tamtia Gram Seva Sahakari Samiti Limited, Sagwara Dungarpur vs. ITO Ward Dungarpur, Dungarpur

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

ITA 890/JODH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Bletamtia Gram Seva Sahakari Vs. Ito, Ward, Samiti Dungarpur. Limited,Thakurdasagwara,Dung Arpur – 314029. Pan No. Aacat7349E Assessee By Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Advocate (Virtually) Shri Karni Dan, Addl. Cit-Dr (Physically) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 08.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 28.01.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short, The Ld. Nfac/Addl/Jcit(A)] Dated 22.11.2024 With Respect To The Assessment Year 2018-19 Challenging Therein Impugned Order Passed Ex-Parte Qua The Assessee Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (In Short “The Ao”) In An Ex-Parte Assessment Order Passed U/S 144B Of The Act.

Section 144B

contended that the Ld. CIT (A) and the AO has passed the orders ex-parte qua the assessee without providing adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard in the gross violation of principles of natural justice. He further contended that the revenue authorities had not discussed the merits ... purchases of Rs.17,29,000/-.by way of counter verification from the creditors while passing 3 de novo assessment after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. Per contra, the Ld. DR stands by the impugned order, however, he has no objection in remanding the matter