← 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

Renault Nissan Technology & Business Centre India Private Limited, Kanchipuram vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle 5(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 914/CHNY/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.913 & 914/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Renault Nissan Technology & Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Business Centre India Private Limited, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 5(1), Tp2/1, Ascendas It Park, Natham Main Building, Aayakar Bhavan, Sub Post Office, Mahindra World City, No. 121, M.G. Road, Kanchipuram District, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. Tamil Nadu 603 004. [Pan:Aadcr7253E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ashik Shah, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against Separate Orders Both Dated 23.06.2023 Passed By The Nfac [Cit(A)] For The Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Ashik Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 10A

adjudication, we deem it proper to give a direction to the ld. CIT(A) to dispose off the same by affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, ground No. 3 as well as addition ground raised vide application dated 22.02.2024 are disposed as above. 18. Ground

Renault Nissan Technology& Business Centre India Private Limited, Kanchipuram vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle 5(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 913/CHNY/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.913 & 914/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Renault Nissan Technology & Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Business Centre India Private Limited, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 5(1), Tp2/1, Ascendas It Park, Natham Main Building, Aayakar Bhavan, Sub Post Office, Mahindra World City, No. 121, M.G. Road, Kanchipuram District, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. Tamil Nadu 603 004. [Pan:Aadcr7253E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ashik Shah, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against Separate Orders Both Dated 23.06.2023 Passed By The Nfac [Cit(A)] For The Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Ashik Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 10A

adjudication, we deem it proper to give a direction to the ld. CIT(A) to dispose off the same by affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, ground No. 3 as well as addition ground raised vide application dated 22.02.2024 are disposed as above. 18. Ground

Super Label Manufacturing LLP, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Circle 27(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1659/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Super Label Acit Circle 27(3) Manufacturing Llp Room No. 423, 4Th Floor, C- 307, Bhaveshwar Plaza, Vs. Tower No. 6, Off. Lbs Road, Vashi Railway Station, Ghatkopar West, Commercial Complex, Mumbai- 400086 Vashi- 400703, Navi Mumbai. Pan: Adcfs2304Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Jayesh Dedia, C.A. Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit D.R. Date Of Hearing : 25 . 04 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30 . 04 . 2024 O R D E R Per: Ratnesh Nandan Sahay: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Appellant Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit Appeal Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act [The ‘Act’ In Short] Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1062706368 Dated 15/03/2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Following Grounds Of Appeal Have Been Raised:

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh Dedia, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

submitted by the appellant that the Ld. CIT Appeal did not consider the submissions made by the assessee and reasonable opportunity of being heard was also not given to the appellant and order was passed ex-parte. 6 M/s. Super Label Manufacturing LLP 10. We have carefully considered the grounds ... remanded to the file of the Ld. CIT Appeal to consider this deposits and decide the issue on merit by providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee to explain the source of the said deposits. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced