← 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

Sukhdev Singh, Barnala vs. ITO, Ward-2, Barnala

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 30/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 30/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Sukhdev Singh, Vs. The Ito, बनाम Ward-2, Bhadalwad, Barnala Barnala 148101 Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Csipp6708G अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Vibhor Garg, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.08.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.08.2024 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri Vibhor Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR

Singh, Barnala 2 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly and illegally passed an ex-parte order without giving the appellant an opportunity of being heard against the principle of natural justice. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly and illegally passed an ex-parte order without giving ... appellant an opportunity of being heard against the principle of natural justice. 4, That the Appellant craves permission to add, amend, elucidate any ground of appeal at the time of hearing 3. At the very outset, the ld. Counsel of the Assessee submitted during proceedings before us that

Summit Sports Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Additional Director of Income Tax CPC, Banglore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 620/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.620/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Summit Sports Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Addl. Dit, Cpc, T-170, Midc, Bhosari, Banglore. Pune- 411026. Pan : Aatcs8122M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Akshay Shivaji Revenue By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastava Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.08.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.02.2024 Passed By Ld Addl./Jcit(A), Jodhpur For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. At The Time Of Assessment, Learned Assessing Authority Passed Assessment Order & Disallowed Claim Of Tds On Account Of Mismatch With 26As. 2. The Learned Assessing Authority Levied Excess Interest U/S 2234B & 234C Without Considering Tax Payment Which Is Unjustified. 3. At The First Hearing Of An Appeal, The Appellant Authority Dismissed The Appeal On Account Of Appeal Is Not Maintainable As There Is Inordinate Delay In Filing An Appeal Which Cannot Be Condoned Without Considering The Facts Of The Case Which Is Unjustified.”

For Appellant: Shri Akshay ShivajiFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava
Section 143(1)Section 223

providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. LD CIT(A)/NFAC shall pass the order as per fact & law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notice issued by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and submit