← 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

Vish Realty Solutions Private Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-5(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 250/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 250/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vish Realty Solutions Private Limited Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3), 55, Ezra Street Vs Kolkata 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcv9938N] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. Jhajharia, A/R Revenue By : Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/01/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -10 (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(E)”) Dt. 02/12/2019, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Io, Kolkata Erred In Passing An Order Dated 2Nd Of December, 2019 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant Without Allowing Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 10, Kolkata Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Share Application Money Ofrs. 5,86,00,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On Irrelevant Considerations & Arbitrary Grounds.

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 68

December, 2019 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dismissing the appeal of the Appellant without allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 10, Kolkata erred in confirming the addition of share application money ofRs

Shanmugam Ravindran, Kangayam vs. ITO, Ward-4, Tirupur

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

ITA 1640/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 1640/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Shanmugam Ravindran, The Income Tax Officer, 349-C, Tirupur Road, Vs. Ward – 1(4), Kangayam – 638 701. Tirupur – 641 602. Pan: Agxpr 1150R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, C.A ""For Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 69A

also ex-parte u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act and contrary to the principles of natural justice as no proper opportunity of being heard was provided to the assessee. For this, the ld.counsel drew our attention to following ground Nos.1 to 5:- “1. For that the order of the Commissioner ... appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Now before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee stated that the CIT(A) has not allowed reasonable opportunity of being heard but it was pointed to him that in para 4 of CIT(A)’s order, it is categorically mentioned that there are seven hearing

Mr. Duraisamy Arun Prasath, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward 4(2), Coimbatore

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

ITA 1553/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1553/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Duraisamy Arun Prasath, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, C/O. M/S. S. Sathiyanarayanan, Non-Corp Ward 4(2), Advocates, Coimbatore. F1, Prp Block – Rose Park, No.10, Santhi Nagar, 1St Cross, Adambakkam, Chennai – 600 088. [Pan: Bdapa 6265R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sathyanarayanan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024 आदेश/ O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S. SathyanarayananFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 115BSection 144Section 69A

earlier years. The ld.counsel stated that practically both the orders i.e., of the AO and CIT(A) is ex-parte and without allowing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. For this, the ld.counsel drew my attention to ground Nos. b, c & d as under:- b) The Learned AO failed ... aside and matter restored back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. Needless to say that the AO will allow reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and assessee is also directed to represent his case as and when notice is issued, otherwise adverse view