← 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

Vishal Mital, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-6(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 700/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.700/Hyd/2024 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vishal Mital Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Vs. Ward-6(1) [Pan :Acqpm1388R] Hyderabad अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent धििााररती द्वारा/Assessee By : Shri Sashank Dundu, Ar राजस्‍व द्वारा/Revenue By : Shri Suresh A, Dr सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/08/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 30/09/2024 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, J.M: Aggrieved By The Order Dated 24/05/2024 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Learned Cit(A)”), In The Case Of Vishal Mittal (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15, Assessee Preferred This Appeal. 2. At The Outset, Learned Ar Submitted That The First Two Notices That Is Notice Under Section 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) Dated 30.03.2021 & Notice Dated 12.11.2021 Were Not Addressed To Any Specific Recipient By Mentioning The Specific E-Mail Id Therein & Thus Such Notices Cannot Be Deemed To Have Been Either Issued Or Served Upon The Recipient/Assessee. Notice Dated 13.12.2021 Was Issued To The Assessee For The First Time By Mentioning The E-Mail Id, Which Further Reinforces The Fact

For Appellant: Shri Sashank Dundu, ARFor Respondent: Shri Suresh A, DR
Section 148

Learned AR, therefore prayed to take cognizance of grave irregularities in following the procedure of law by the department and provide an opportunity of being heard before the learned CIT(A) in the interest of justice. 4. Though the learned DR opposed the prayer made on behalf of the assessee

Thenmozhi Ganesan, Dindigul vs. PCIT, Madurai-1

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in above terms

ITA 1628/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1628/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Thenmozhi Ganesan, The Principal Commissioner Of 13A, Collectorate, Vs. Income Tax, Indira Nagar, Madurai. Dindigul 624 004. Pan: Adtpt 8145C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Bhupendran, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madurai-1 [‘Pcit’ I Short] Dated 25.03.2024 For Assessment Years 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On 1-5 Grounds Which Are As Under: Ita No.1628 /Chny/2024 ‘’1) The Order Of The Learned Pcit Is Bad & Erroneous In Law. 2) The Learned Pcit Erred In Not Considering The Submission Filed By The Appellant In Proper Perspective. 3) The Learned Pcit Erred In Not Considering The Scope & Effect Of The Amendment Made In Section 40(A)(Ia) In Proper Perspective. 4) The Order By The Learned Pcit Directing The Assessing Officer To Pass A Fresh Assessment Order By Disallowing 100 Percent U/S. 40(A)(Ia), Without Cancelling The Earlier Assessment Order, As Mandated By Section 263 Is Bad In Law. 5) Invoking Section 263, When The Issue Of Disallowance U/S. 40(A)(Ia), At The Time Of Passing The Assessment Order Dated 10/03/2022 U/S.148, Was Not Free From Doubt, Is Not Legally Tenable’.

For Appellant: Shri. S. Bhupendran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 194CSection 263Section 40

Assessing Officer to pass a fresh assessment order by disallowing 100% u/s 40(a)(ia). The Assessing Officer was also directed to afford opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing the order and pass fresh assessment order accordingly. Aggrieved, assesseee preferred an appeal before us. 5. The ld.Counsel

Philips Foods India Private Limited, Tuticorin vs. PCIT-1, Madurai

ITA 640/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 640/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Year: 2016-17 Philips Foods India Private Limited, The Principal Commissioner Of Vs. C-75 / 76, Sipcot Industrial Complex, Madathoor, Tuticorin - 628008 [Pan: Aabcp7916Q] Madurai-1 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Ashik Sha, Ca, Mr.Vinay Jain Ca, Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : This Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2022-23/1051684572(1) Dated 30.03.2023 Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Herein After “Pcit" For The

For Appellant: Shri Ashik Sha, CA
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 92C

passed by Ld. PCIT, Madurai-1 would not cause much loss to the assesse as in any case it would be accorded sufficient opportunity of being heard. 12.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. Before proceeding further we deem it necessary to examine ... erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assesse an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify