← 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

Multi Venture Infotech Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi

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

ITA 3677/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Prusethassessment Year: 2014-15 Multi Venture Infotech Pvt. National Faceless Appeal Ltd., Centre 404 Bldg No. 8A Damodar Park, National Faceless Appeal Vs. Ghatkopar West, Mumbai, Centre, 245-A, North Block, Maharashtra – 400086 New Delhi, Delhi - 110001 Pan : Aaacm9718L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Tejas Sodha, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.04.2023, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) /Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2014-15. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessing Officer Vide Assessment Order Dated 24.05.2023 Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 (B) Of The Act Has Made The Additions / Disallowances Of Rs. 2,03,00,000/- & Rs. 96,11,642/- Respectively On Account Of Unexplained Cash Credit Under Section 68 Of The Act & 2 Multi Venture Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Disallowance Of Loss In Derivative Transaction (Variation Proposed).

For Appellant: Shri Tejas Sodha, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, SR.D.R
Section 147Section 250Section 68

file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by considering the aforesaid documents filed on 13.02.2023 and affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 8. The Assessee is also directed to comply with the notices to be issued by the Ld. Commissioner and file

Kamlesh Tyagi, Delhi vs. Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8789/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 8789/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2020-21 Kamlesh Tyagi, Vs Cit(A)/Nfac, A-601, Lake View Apptt., Paschim Income Tax Officer, Vihar, Sunder Vihar, West Delhi, Ward-67(1), New Delhi-110087 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadpt4266G Assessee By: Sh. Kamlesh Tyagi (Individual) Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.01.2026 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2020-21 Arises Against The Addl./Jcit(A)-2, Hyderabad’S Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1066275720(1) Dated 30.06.2024, In Proceedings U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Kamlesh Tyagi (Individual)For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(1)

that there was enhancement in the income amounting by Rs.397100.00 and assessing total income at Rs 1188620.00 This was made without providing any opportunity of being heard as it appears that this addition was made by treating the employee as non- government employee although no specific reasons has been informed ... correct proposition as per principal of natural justice it becomes mandatory on the part of assessing officer to provide the opportunity of being heard however factually employer of the appellant is govt. therefore he is entitle for deduction of Rs 697000.00. 4. Kindly stay the demand. As disallowance has been

Sunil Kumar Saxena, Noida vs. Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8780/DEL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 8780/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2020-21 Sunil Kumar Saxena, Vs Cit(A)/Nfac, Flat No. N6-403, Plot No. Gh-8B, Delhi Tech Zone-Iv Are, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P.-201306 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acmps0313C Assessee By: Sh. Sunil K. Saxena (Individual) Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.01.2026 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2020-21 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1051074646(1) Dated 21.03.2023, In Proceedings U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil K. Saxena (Individual)For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(1)

that there was enhancement in the income amounting by Rs.397100.00 and assessing total income at Rs 1188620.00 This was made without providing any opportunity of being heard as it appears that this addition was made by treating the employee as non- government employee although no specific reasons has been informed ... correct proposition as per principal of natural justice it becomes mandatory on the part of assessing officer to provide the opportunity of being heard however factually employer of the appellant is govt. therefore he is entitle for deduction of Rs 697000.00. 4. Kindly stay the demand. As disallowance has been