← 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

Roche Products (India) Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Asst Comm of Income Tax-1(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 307/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.307/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Roche Products (India) Pvt. बिधम/ Acit-1(3)(1) Ltd. Room No. 540, 5Th Floor, Vs. 8Th Floor, 146-B, 166A, Unit Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. No.7, 8 & 9, R City Mall Road, Mumbai-400020. Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai- 400086. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr2744K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shrihari Iyer Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 09.12.2022 For Ay 2018-19. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Pointed Out That The Adjustment Made By The Cpc U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Disallowing The Employee’S Contribution Towards Pf/Esic For Belated Deposits Is In Line With The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cit (448 Itr 518). Therefore, He Does Not Contest The Action Of The Cpc On Principle As Such. However, His Limited Prayer Is That This Lapse (Of Not Depositing The Employee’S Contribution Within The Due- Date) Was Only In Few Months (Refer Chart Infra). According To Assessee, A Careful Perusal Of The Deposit Of Contribution In The Relevant Government Account Of Pf/Esic, It Would Reveal That Assessee Had Been Depositing More Amount I.E. Advance Amount In The Relevant

For Appellant: Shri Shrihari IyerFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 143(1)

appellant and not following the procedure laid down under the Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2021. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to provide an opportunity of being heard thereby violating principles of natural justice. 3. Without prejudice to above grounds, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in disregarding the fact

Kalaben Pramod Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO-27(2)(1), Vashi

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

ITA 1104/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1104/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Kalaben Pramod Shah बिधम/ Ito-27(2)(1) 3Rd & 4Th Floor, Vashi G-6, Lal Ashish Bldg, Vs. Garodia Nagar, Ghatkopar Railway Station, Vashi- East, Mumbai-400077. 400703. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aamps4027P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Pankaj Mall Revenue By: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 19.12.2022 For Ay. 2011-12. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao Passed U/S 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act’) Wherein The Ao Has Added The Entire Purchase & Sale Consideration On Of Rs.26,52,250/- As Income & Ignored The Contention The Profit From The Transaction Should Be Taxed. 3. Regarding The Cause Of Delay In Filing Of Appeal, The Ld. Ar For Assessee, Brought To My Notice That Assessee Is An Individual Who Is More Than 75 Years Old Lady & Her Husband Was Looking After The Commodity Business & Filing Of Return Of Income Etc. However, During The Re-Assessment Proceedings, Her Husband Had By-Pass

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj MallFor Respondent: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. DR)
Section 144

authority, that reads thus : "We will straightway agree with the assessee's submission that the ITO had not given to the assessee proper opportunity of being heard." That the assessee could have placed evidence before the first appellate authority or before the Tribunal is really of no consequence ... aside the order of assessment and remand the matter to the assessing authority for fresh assessment after giving to the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard. 2. Two questions were placed before the High Court, of which the second question is not pressed. The first question reads thus