← 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

Kapila Mahendra Patel, Vadodara vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1905/AHD/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Jan 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2024-25 Kapila Mahendra Patel Vs. The Dy.Cit Circle-1(1)(1) Kamdhenu Estate Aayakar Bhavan Opp. Citi Bank Race Course Race Course Circle Vadodara – 390 007 Vadodara – 390 007 Pan : Adbpp 3883 G अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hemant Suthar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rameshwar P. Meena, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/01/2026

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Suthar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P. Meena, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 24Section 250

AddI/JCIT(A)-2, Bengaluru has grossly erred in law and in facts in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. The appeal of the appellant may kindly be restored to the file of the Ld. Addl./ICIT (Appeals) and may please ... directed to afford reasonable opportunity of being heard. 2. The Ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Bengaluru has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating the fact that the adjustment made by Ld. A.O., CPC, Bengaluru does not fall within the permissible scope of section 143(1)(a), which allows

Cil Employees Co Op Credit Society Limited, Pune vs. Exemption, Ward-1(2), Pune

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

ITA 1600/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1600/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Cil Employees’ Co Op Credit V Exemption, Society Limited, S Ward-1(2), Pune. Cummins Inida Ltd., Kothrud, Pune – 411038. Pan:Aabac8908M Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishore Phadke Revenue By Shri Sandeep Sathe – Jcit Date Of Hearing 08/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21 Dated 29.02.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144B Of The I.T .Act, 1961 Dated 28.09.2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(b)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

claimed u/s 80P of ITA, 1961, as against the Nil returned income. 2. Appellant contends that, appellant ought to be given another reasonable opportunity of being heard, considering that, appellant could not make effective submissions before the lower authorities, due to utter confusion and communication gaps, which prevailed between

M/S. Annleela Vinimay (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 4(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 1275/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1275/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Annleela Vinimay (P) Ltd..………………....…………………....Appellant 413, Panchanantala Road, Paschim Putiary, Ground Floor, Megh Manasi Apartment, Kol-41.. [Pan: Aacca2542E] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(3), Kolkata..……………....…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Ar., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Dheeraj, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 19, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 19, 2026 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 12.04.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income Declaring A Total Income Of ₹1,24,165. The Assessing Officer Completed Assessment U/S 144 By Making Addition Of Rs.5,13,68,152/-. 3. Aggrieved By The Assessment Order, The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Cit(A). However, The Appeal Was Dismissed For Non- Submission Of Audit Report.

Section 144Section 250

Assessing Officer is passed u/s 144 of the Act without adjudication on merits and the assessee was thus deprived of a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In our considered opinion, in the interest of justice and fair play, the matter deserves to be restored to the file ... fresh adjudication on merits, after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the entire issue is remanded back to the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to examine the matter afresh in accordance with law and after considering the submissions and evidence that