← 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

Prakash Shripal Chavan, Sangli vs. ITO, Ward-1, Sangli

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

ITA 580/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.580/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Prakash Shripal Chavan, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Sangli. 1 Stand Road, Samdoli Sangli, Sangli- 416416. Pan : Ajlpc0555E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastava Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.02.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Dismissing Appeal By Not Condoning The Delay When There Was Sufficient Cause For The Delay. 2. The Appellant Prays That The Delay May Kindly Be Condoned & The Appeal May Kindly Be Decided On Merits.” 3. The Facts, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & No Return Of Income Under The Provisions Of Section 139 Of The It Act

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. LD CIT(A)/ NFAC shall pass the order as per facts & 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 the requisite

Progressive Alloys(India) Pvt.Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 20(1), Delhi

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

ITA 3510/DEL/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaprogressive Alloys (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 20 (1), 307, Express Tower, N.S. Mandi, Delhi. North West Delhi, Delhi – 110 033. (Pan : Aagcp1584M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepanshu Singla, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Order : 12.07.2024 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 30.07.2023 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. That Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Impugned Order Dated 02.08.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"), Generated Vide Din: Itbainfac/S/250/2023-24/054820030(1), Dismissing The Grounds Of Appeal & Determining The Total Income At Rs.8,53,03,474/- In Place Of Returned Income As Returned By The Assessee Is Bad In Law On Account Of Several Grounds & Assessee/Appellant Denies Its Liability To Be Assessed For Any Income Other Than The Income Already Returned By The Assessee & The Consequential Demand Of Rs.4,61,05,193/-.

For Appellant: Shri Deepanshu Singla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 147oSection 148Section 250

file of ld. CIT (A). Ld. CIT (A) shall consider the issue afresh and decide as per law after giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard. Assessee is also directed to cooperate with the proceedings. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes