← 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

Shree Saurashtra Kadwa Patel Samaj, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 1419/PUN/2023[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1419/Pun/2023 Shree Saurashtra Kadwa Patel Vs. Cit Exemption, Pune. Samaj, Sr.No.3/1, H.No.1 To 4/1/1/1, Nr. Ioc, Abmbegaon Bk Petrol Pump, Pune- 411046. Pan : Aaits2593N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari Date Of Hearing 11.01.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement : 11.01.2024 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Exemption, Pune [‘The Cit, Exemption’] Dated 01.11.2023 Passed U/S 12Ab R.W.S. 12A(1)(Ac)(Vi) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’). 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Charitable Society Registered Under The Provisions Of Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. It Is Formed With The Objects Of Navratri Function, Sports Activity, Makar Sankranti, Education Excellency Award & Cultural Programs Etc. The Appellant Society Had Applied For Grant

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari
Section 12ASection 142(1)

remand the proceedings to the ld. CIT, Exemption for de novo disposal of the application in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 11th

Addl CIT RG 7(1), Mumbai vs. Piramal Enterprises Ltd (Formerly Knwon As Piramal Healthcare Ltd) (As Ultimate Successor to Nicholas Piramal India Ltd), Mumbai

ITA 5091/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known Income Tax, As Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier Known As Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Circle-8(2)(1), As Piramal Healthcare [Erstwhile Dcit Circle- Ltd.) (As Ultimate 7(1)], Successor To Nicholas Vs. Mumbai. Piramal India Ltd.), Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Priyank Gala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chogule, (Addl. CIT) Sr. A.R
Section 28Section 40Section 45

favour of the assessee by the Tribunal vide order (supra). So the AO is directed to verify it and decide after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee within a period of six months after receipt of the order. Ground No.3 is partly allowed in favour of the assessee ... ground is allowed for statistical purposes.” 58. Since the issue is identical the same is restored to the AO to decide after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee in view of the directions given by the Tribunal extracted above. Consequently ground No.6 is allowed for statistical purposes

Piramal Healthcare Ltd ( Earlier Knownas Nicholas Piramal India Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 7(1), Mumbai

ITA 3706/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known Income Tax, As Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier Known As Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Circle-8(2)(1), As Piramal Healthcare [Erstwhile Dcit Circle- Ltd.) (As Ultimate 7(1)], Successor To Nicholas Vs. Mumbai. Piramal India Ltd.), Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Priyank Gala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chogule, (Addl. CIT) Sr. A.R
Section 28Section 40Section 45

favour of the assessee by the Tribunal vide order (supra). So the AO is directed to verify it and decide after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee within a period of six months after receipt of the order. Ground No.3 is partly allowed in favour of the assessee ... ground is allowed for statistical purposes.” 58. Since the issue is identical the same is restored to the AO to decide after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee in view of the directions given by the Tribunal extracted above. Consequently ground No.6 is allowed for statistical purposes

Shri Subramaniam Elangovan, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petition is dismissed

ITA 1074/CHNY/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1074/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & S.P. No. 42/Chny/2023 [In I.T.A. No. 1074/Chny/2023 Subramaniam Elangovan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 37, Laxarus Church, 2Nd Lane, Non-Corporate Ward 1(2), Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai. Chennai 600 028. [Pan:Aaape2824Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.01.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 4, Chennai Dated 26.02.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Time Barred By 2692 Days Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition In Support Of An Affidavit, Wherein, Following Submissions Were Made:

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 69

Officer to examine the details as may be filed by the assessee decide the issue afresh in accordance with law by affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to furnish complete details with evidence and suitable explanations before the Assessing Officer for verification