← 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

Chandra Gupta Basetty, Mancherial vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Manchirial

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

ITA 843/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.843/Hyd/2024 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Chandra Gupta Basetty Income Tax Officer Mancherial Vs. Ward-1 Mancherial [Pan : Aenpb6195G] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent धििााररती द्वारा/Assessee By : Shri K.A.Sai Prasad, Ar राजस्‍व द्वारा/Revenue By : Shri Kumaran Ram, Dr सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 23/09/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 24/09/2024 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, J.M: Aggrieved By The Order Dated 28/03/2024 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Learned Cit(A)”), In The Case Of Chandra Gupta Basetty (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18, The Assessee Preferred This Appeal With A Delay Of 95 Days. 2. At The Outset Learned Ar Submits That The Learned Cit(A) Recorded That So Many Notices Were Issued & Because Of The Nonappearance Of The Assessee He Proceeded Ex-Parte & Dismissed The Appeal In Limine. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit & Submitted That The He Filed An Appeal Before The Learned Cit(A) Against The Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri K.A.Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumaran Ram, DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)

merits, without seeking any adjournments and the learned Assessing Officer to take a fresh look at the matter, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds are accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

Guthikonda Pradeep Kumar Reddy, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 825/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.825/Hyd/2024 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Guthikonda Pradeep Income Tax Officer Kumar Reddy Vs. Ward-9(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Anrpg7345N] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent धििााररती द्वारा/Assessee By : Mohd.Afzal, Ar राजस्‍व द्वारा/Revenue By : Shri Kumaran Ram, Dr सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/09/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 24/09/2024 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, J.M: Aggrieved By The Order Dated 17/03/2024 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Learned Cit(A)”), In The Case Of Guthikonda Pradeep Kumar Reddy (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18, The Assessee Preferred This Appeal With A Delay Of 465 Days. 2. At The Outset, Assessee Brought To My Notice That In Form No.35, The Assessee Requested Not To Communicate The Notices By Email By Specifically Noting So, But Inspite Of The Same, The Learned Cit(A) Sent The Notices To The Email Of The Assessee, Therefore, Miscommunication Happened & The Mail Sent By The Learned Cit(A) Escaped The Attention Of The Assessee.

For Appellant: Mohd.Afzal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumaran Ram, DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)

merits, without seeking any adjournments and the learned Assessing Officer to take a fresh look at the matter, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds are accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed