← 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

Girish Ratanlal Murkya, Jalna vs. Income Tax Department National Faceless Assessment Centre, Jalna

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

ITA 919/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.919/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Girish Ratanlal Murkya, Vs Income Tax Department, Near Market Yard, Main Road, National Faceless Assessment Tal.-Mantha, Dist.-Jalna-431504 Centre Pan : Agrpm1697A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 26/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 17.08.2023 For The A.Y. 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Ld. Cit(A) (Nfac) Erred In Passing Appeal Order Under Sec. 250 Of The Act, Dt. 17-08-2023 Which Order Is Perverse Not Only To The Facts Of The Case & Also The Provisions Of The Act, 1961. Girish Ratanlal Murkya

Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 69A

could not comply. The ld. AR submitted that there was no opportunity granted by the ld. CIT(A) and requested for one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Submission of ld. Departmental Representative (ld. DR) : 5. The ld. DR for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing

Audyogik Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Nashik vs. ITO (Exemption) - 1(1), Nashik

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

ITA 709/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.709/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Audyogik Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Vs The Income Tax Officer Annasaheb Vaishampayan Vidyalaya, (Exemption)-1(1), Nashik Mahatma Nagar, Satpur, Nashik-422007 Pan : Aaata8178P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket M. Joshi Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 26/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)/Addl./Jcit(A)-4, Bengaluru Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 11.02.2024 For The A.Y. 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : Audyogik Shikshan Prasarak Mandal

Section 11Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

merits of the case and 2 Audyogik Shikshan Prasarak Mandal merely dismissed for non-compliance. Hence, ld. AR requested for one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Submission of ld. Departmental Representative (ld. DR) : 4. The ld. DR for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer

Gemini Arts (P) Limited, (Represented by Liquidator Ms. Sripriya Kumar), Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 10(6), Chennai

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

ITA 841/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.841/Chny/2024 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Gemini Arts (P) Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, (Represented By – Liquidator: Ms. Vs. Non-Corporate Ward-10(6), Sripriya Kumar), Chennai. No.224A, (New 346/1), Avvai Shanmugam Salai, Gopalapuram, Chennai-600086. [Pan: Aaacg 1181D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथE की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Shrenik Chordia, C.A GhथE की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per S.R. Raghunatha, A.M : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter “Cit(A)] In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1060306304(1), Dated 31.01.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Tax Officer, National E.Assessment Centre, Delhi For The :- 2 -: Assessment Year 2018-19 U/S.144 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Shrenik Chordia, C.A GHFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 68

taxed U/s.115BBE of the Act for the AY 2018-19, without appreciating the submissions made by the assessee or providing reasonable opportunity of being heard either by the AO or by the CIT(A). The ld. AR for the assessee first of all stated that the assessment was framed ... taxed U/s.115BBE of the Act. He stated that the AO passed this assessment order ex-parte dated 25/04/2021 without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the CIT(A)-NFAC also confirmed the same by his order dated 31/01/2024 without considering the submissions of the assessee

Indira Galada, Chennai vs. ACIT, Non-Corporate Circle-9(1), Chennai

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

ITA 607/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.607/Chny/2024 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mrs. Indra Galada, The Asst. Commissioner Of New No.22, Old No.59, Vs. Income Tax, 2Nd Main Road, R.A. Puram, Non-Corporate Circle -9(1), Chennai – 600 028. Chennai. [Pan: Aadpg 9039N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथF की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate For Shri D. Anand, Advocate HiथF की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per S.R. Raghunatha, A.M : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [Nfac], Delhi [Hereinafter “Cit(A)”] In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1059671380(1), Dated 12.01.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle-9(1), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2011-12 U/S.143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The :- 2 -: Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Vide Order Dated

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate for Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

same has been accepted by the Department. Further, he stated that the NFAC has erred in disposing of the appeal without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 3. The Ld. AR for the assessee took us through the order of CIT(A)- NFAC and stated that ... above, the matter is remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC for fresh adjudication after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee