← 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

ITO 27(3)(1), Vashi Navi Mumbai vs. Ranjankumar S Panigrahi, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes, they being cross appeals

ITA 1194/MUM/2024[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Ranjankumar Simanchal Panigrahi, Commissioner Of Income Flat No.113, B-Wing, Centroid, Tax(Appeal), Vs. Ghatkoper East, Nfac, Delhi Mumbai – 400075 (Pan : Akvpp1207D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2017 Income Tax Officer – 27(3)(1), Ranjankumar Simanchal Vashi, Navi Mumbai Panigrahi, Vs. Flat No.113, B-Wing, Centroid, Ghatkoper East, Mumbai – 400075 (Pan : Akvpp1207D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Kiran Mehta, Ca Revenue : Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Kiran Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 44

claims that he had been hardly given any time to submit his replies tentamounting to denial of natural justice and not giving adequate opportunity of being heard. While enquiring on the issue, ld. Assessing Officer called for the details which included names and address of the parties, nature of services ... verify and examine these documents, for the partial relief given by him. Ld. Assessing Officer, ought to have been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard by calling a remand report in respect of these documents and details on which reliance was placed by ld. CIT(A), by partly allowing

Ranjankumar Simanchal Panigrahi, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal, Delhi

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes, they being cross appeals

ITA 1161/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Ranjankumar Simanchal Panigrahi, Commissioner Of Income Flat No.113, B-Wing, Centroid, Tax(Appeal), Vs. Ghatkoper East, Nfac, Delhi Mumbai – 400075 (Pan : Akvpp1207D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2017 Income Tax Officer – 27(3)(1), Ranjankumar Simanchal Vashi, Navi Mumbai Panigrahi, Vs. Flat No.113, B-Wing, Centroid, Ghatkoper East, Mumbai – 400075 (Pan : Akvpp1207D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Kiran Mehta, Ca Revenue : Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Kiran Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 44

claims that he had been hardly given any time to submit his replies tentamounting to denial of natural justice and not giving adequate opportunity of being heard. While enquiring on the issue, ld. Assessing Officer called for the details which included names and address of the parties, nature of services ... verify and examine these documents, for the partial relief given by him. Ld. Assessing Officer, ought to have been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard by calling a remand report in respect of these documents and details on which reliance was placed by ld. CIT(A), by partly allowing