← 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

Varathsingh Jai Singh, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore

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

ITA 772/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.769, 771 & 772/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Varathsingh Jai Singh, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 128, 5Th Street, Cross Cut Road, Income Tax, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore 641 012. Central Circle I, Coimbatore. [Pan: Akhpj5413H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.01.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate The Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai, All Dated 30.03.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16. 2. The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Delayed By 30 Days In Filing The Appeal, For Which, The Assessee Has Filed Petitions For Condonation Of The Delay In Support Of An Affidavit, To Which; The Ld. Dr Has Not Raised Any 2

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 131(1)Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 153A

years based on the written submissions filed by the assessee on 17.11.2018, after a period of more than four years, without affording any opportunity of being heard to the assessee to explain its case. Thus, in the interest of natural justices, we are of the opinion that the assessee shall ... remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 9. In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open

Varathsingh Jai Singh, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore

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

ITA 771/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.769, 771 & 772/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Varathsingh Jai Singh, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 128, 5Th Street, Cross Cut Road, Income Tax, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore 641 012. Central Circle I, Coimbatore. [Pan: Akhpj5413H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.01.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate The Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai, All Dated 30.03.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16. 2. The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Delayed By 30 Days In Filing The Appeal, For Which, The Assessee Has Filed Petitions For Condonation Of The Delay In Support Of An Affidavit, To Which; The Ld. Dr Has Not Raised Any 2

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 131(1)Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 153A

years based on the written submissions filed by the assessee on 17.11.2018, after a period of more than four years, without affording any opportunity of being heard to the assessee to explain its case. Thus, in the interest of natural justices, we are of the opinion that the assessee shall ... remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 9. In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open

Varathsingh Jai Singh, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore

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

ITA 769/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.769, 771 & 772/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Varathsingh Jai Singh, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 128, 5Th Street, Cross Cut Road, Income Tax, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore 641 012. Central Circle I, Coimbatore. [Pan: Akhpj5413H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.01.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate The Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai, All Dated 30.03.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16. 2. The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Delayed By 30 Days In Filing The Appeal, For Which, The Assessee Has Filed Petitions For Condonation Of The Delay In Support Of An Affidavit, To Which; The Ld. Dr Has Not Raised Any 2

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 131(1)Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 153A

years based on the written submissions filed by the assessee on 17.11.2018, after a period of more than four years, without affording any opportunity of being heard to the assessee to explain its case. Thus, in the interest of natural justices, we are of the opinion that the assessee shall ... remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 9. In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open

Maruti Laxman Parse, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(3), Pune

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

ITA 1371/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1371/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Maruti Laxman Parse, Vs. Ito, Ward-9(3), Pune. S.No.14/13, Sai Niwas, Adarsh Colony, Belthika Nagar, Thergaon, Pune-City, Thergaon B.O.- 411033. Pan : Aiepp8194Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Uma Shankar Prasad Date Of Hearing : 01.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.01.2024 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 12.09.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual. No Regular Return Of Income Under The Provisions Of Section 139 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Was Filed For The Assessment Year 2017-18. On Receipt Of The Information That The Appellant Had Made Cash Deposits Of Rs.24,50,000/- With Indian

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Uma Shankar Prasad
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

notice of hearing. In the circumstances, it can be presumed that the NFAC had passed the impugned order without giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant to represent the matter before him and this approach of the NFAC is in gross violation of principles of natural justice ... back to the file of the NFAC and direct to dispose of the appeal on merits 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

Angel Jewellery, Mumbai vs. ITO 42 (1) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3239/MUM/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharyangel Jewellery Vs. Ito-42(1)(1) 4, Akurli Industrial Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Estate, Akurli Road, Bandra East, Kandivali East, 400051 Mumbai-400101 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaifa7184P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : K.A.Vaidyalingan Respondent By : Lieder Panicker Date Of Hearing 27.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 01.01.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Dated 16.08.2023 For A.Y. 2007-08. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The Learned Cit (A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant In Unnecessary Hurry & Without Giving A Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard. 2. The Learned Cit (A) Failed To Appreciate The Fact That Out Of Three Dates Given Earlier, On Two Occasions It Was Impossible To Respond Due To Covid-19 & Consequent Lockdown & On The Last Occasion, The Ca Who Was Handling This Old Matter Was Indisposed. 3. In Law & On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Entire Reassessment Is Bad In Law & Nullity As The Learned Ao Erred In Completing The Reassessment U/S. 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act Without Issuing A Valid Notices U/S. 148 & 143 (2) Of The Act. 4. The Learned Cit (A) Erred In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.24.12,640/- Made By The Learned Ao U/S. 69C On Account Of Alleged Unsecured Loan

For Appellant: K.A.VaidyalinganFor Respondent: Lieder Panicker
Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 69C

before us: “1. The learned CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant in unnecessary hurry and without giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 2. The learned CIT (A) failed to appreciate the fact that out of three dates given earlier, on two occasions it was impossible