← 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

Veeresh Kumar Ramachandran, Kollam vs. The ACIT, Kollam

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

ITA 65/COCH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year: 2016-17 Veeresh Kumar Ramachandran, House No.49/762, Dhanam, The Assistant Arayacham Veedu, Commissioner Of Income Vs. Kacheri, Tax, Kollam 691 013. Circle – 1, Pan No : Adypk7225J Kollam. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri R Sreenivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. J.M. Jumuna Devi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.03.2023 O R D E R Per Beena Pillai: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 28.5.2021 Passed By Nfac Delhi For Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. This Appeal Has Been Preferred Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals) Who Completed The Appeal Ex-Parte Assessing Long Term Capital Gain On Immovable Property In Which Appellant Had A Share. 2. Intact No Notice Was Served On The Appellant Thro Itba Module. A. The Assessing Officer Is Not Justified In Ignoring The. Comparable Case & Value Submitted By The Appellant In Total Disregard. Veeresh Kumar Ramachandran, Kollam

For Appellant: Shri R Sreenivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jumuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 250

issues raised based on the evidences/documents filed by the assessee on merits and pass a detailed order. Needless to say, that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to assessee by way of a personal hearing. The assessee is also directed to file all necessary evidences in support

Aiswarya Granites, Kollam vs. ITO Ward 1 & Tps, Kollam

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 622/COCH/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Mar 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Aiswarya Granites, Egpvii/70, The Assistant Arkannor, Commissioner Of Elavummoodu, Vs. Income Tax, Kollam 691 533. National E- Assessment Centre, Pan No : Aapfa5874K Delhi. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri G. Surendranath Rao, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.03.2023 O R D E R Per Beena Pillai: The Preset Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 25.3.2022 Passed By Nfac Delhi For Assessment Year 2018-19 On Following Grounds: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner (Appeals) Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Is Against-Facts & Law. 2. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Is Not Justified In Disallowing The Payment Of Commercial Tax. The Commissioner (Appeals) Should Have Appreciated That The Amount Paid Was A Statutory Levy Payable By All Crushers Installed In Stone Quarries Based On Their Installed Capacity. The Levy Was To Be Remitted On Quarterly Basis. The Commissioner (Appeals) Nfac Has Erred In Concluding That The Amount Paid Is In The Nature Of A Compounding Fee For Any Offence Or Towards Aiswarya Granites, Kollam

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 37Section 37(1)

Ld.CIT(A) to consider the claim in accordance with law based on the document filed by assessee. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly this ground raised by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. 6. Ground No.3 is in respect