← 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

Rushi Pravinchandra Raskapoor, Surat vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 135/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.135/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Rushi Pravinchandra Principal Commissioner Of Raskapoor, Road No.11 Income-Tax-1, Surat, Aaykar Vs. Udhna Industries Estate, Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- Surat-394210 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abmpr 0305 E (""थ" /Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Nitin Gheewala, A.R राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-D.R सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/06/2023 आदेश / Order Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Correctness Of The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Surat (In Short “Ld. Pcit”] Dated 16.01.2023, Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. At The Outset, Learned Counsel For The Assessee, Begins By Pointing Out That Ld. Pcit Has Invoked His Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act On The Reason That As Per The Wage Register Of Assessee, For The Period Under Consideration, That Assessee Has Received An Amount Of Rs.2,46,500/- As Employee’S Contribution To Esic & Further An Amount Of Rs.6,144/- As Employee’S Contribution To Provident Fund In Various Months. The Table Is Given In The Order Of Ld. Pcit On Pages-1 & 2 Of His Order, Wherein Total Esic Amount Is Shown At Rs.2,46,500/- & Total Employee’S Provident Fund Amount Is Shown At Rs.6,144/- Respectively. The Ld. Pcit Noted That Employee’S Contribution Is An Income In The Hands Of The Employers As Per Section 2(24)(X) Of The Act, If It Is Not Deposited By Employers

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Gheewala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263

fresh assessment order, consequent to this order under section 263 of the Act, 1961, the Assessing Officer shall grant reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.” ITA No. 135/SRT/2023 A.Y.18-19 Rushi Pravinchandra Raskapoor 5. From the above direction of Ld. PCIT, we note that Ld. PCIT

Murliwala Agrotech Private Limited, Rajasthan vs. DCIT Circle-14, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 609/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2015-16 Murliwala Agrotech Private Limited, Vs Dcit, G-20-245, Ricco Industrial Area, Circle-14, Gudli Udaipur, Delhi. Rajasthan – 313024. Pan: Aaccm0796Q (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Susheel Kumar, Ca & Ms Archana Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms Raja Rajeshwari R. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.06.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.609/Del/2022 For Ay 2015-16 Arises Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’, In Short] In Appeal No.10255/19-20 Dated 10.12.2021 Against The Order U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 27.06.2019 Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer, Circle-2, Udaipur (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’). 2. The Only Effective Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Was Justified In Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case.

For Appellant: Shri Susheel Kumar, CA &For Respondent: Ms Raja Rajeshwari R. Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

called ambiguous wording in the notice [has not] impaired or prejudiced the right of the assessee to a reasonable opportunity of being heard". It went onto observe that for sustaining the plea of natural justice on the ground of absence of opportunity, "it has to be established that prejudice