← 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

The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax-2(1)Bhilai, Bhilai(Cg) vs. M/S Sms Shivnath Infrasstructure Pvt Ltd., Durg, Durg(Cg)

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 87/BIL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.87/Rpr/2017 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Acit-2(1), Bhilai Vs M/S Sms Shivnath Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.,Toll Plaza, Near Dhamdhanaka, Durg. Pan No. :Aadcs 2258 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.107/Rpr/2016 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Sms Shivnath Infrastructure Vs Pr.Cit-2, Raipur Pvt Ltd.,Toll Plaza, Near Dhamdhanaka, Durg. Pan No. :Aadcs 2258 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, Adv. & MukeshFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 36Section 80ISection 80l

having set aside the issue of calculation of profits U/s 115JB in light of disallowable interest, being a ground for which no opportunity of being heard being accorded to the Appellant, is violative of the principles of natural justice making the order passed U/s 263 bad in law and liable ... after taking into consideration of provisions of Company Act 1956, it was restored to the files of AO to adjudicate again after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. A fresh issue without hearing the assessee or causing the assessee to make its submissions on the same is against

M/S Sms Shivnath Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Durg(Cg) vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Raipur (Cg)

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 107/BIL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.87/Rpr/2017 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Acit-2(1), Bhilai Vs M/S Sms Shivnath Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.,Toll Plaza, Near Dhamdhanaka, Durg. Pan No. :Aadcs 2258 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.107/Rpr/2016 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Sms Shivnath Infrastructure Vs Pr.Cit-2, Raipur Pvt Ltd.,Toll Plaza, Near Dhamdhanaka, Durg. Pan No. :Aadcs 2258 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, Adv. & MukeshFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 36Section 80ISection 80l

having set aside the issue of calculation of profits U/s 115JB in light of disallowable interest, being a ground for which no opportunity of being heard being accorded to the Appellant, is violative of the principles of natural justice making the order passed U/s 263 bad in law and liable ... after taking into consideration of provisions of Company Act 1956, it was restored to the files of AO to adjudicate again after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. A fresh issue without hearing the assessee or causing the assessee to make its submissions on the same is against

Abhimanyu Sahu, Buxipalli vs. PCIT-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 30/CTK/2022[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack24 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 Abhimanyu Sahu, Buxipalli, Abhimanyu Sahu, Buxipalli, Vs. Pr. Cit-1, Gopalpur On Sea. Gopalpur On Sea. Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aokps 4011 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.N.Dave, Ca P.N.Dave, Ca Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. Cit (Osd) Pr. Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 24 /0 03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 24 /0 /03/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Against The Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Act 263 Of The Act Of The Ld Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar-1 Dated Dated 10.3.2021 In Appeal No. Itba/Rev/ V/F/Rev5/2020-21/1031385941(1) For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Shri P.N.Dave, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri P.N.Dave, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri P.N.Dave, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Pr. Cit(Osd) Appeared For The Revenue. M.K.Gautam, Ld Pr. Cit(Osd) Appeared For The Revenue. M.K.Gautam, Ld Pr. Cit(Osd) Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri P.N.Dave, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. CIT (OSD)
Section 143(3)Section 263

order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, then, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such enquiry, he deems necessary, pass such order thereon, as the circumstances of the case

P P Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 25, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 6931/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usi.T.A. No. 6332/Del/2017 (A.Y 2011-12) P P Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, H-5, Netaji Subhash Place, Central Circle : 25, Pitampura, Delhi – 110 034. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacp0874G & I.T.A. No. 6529/Del/2017 (A.Y 2011-12) Acit, Vs. P P Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle : 25, H-5, Netaji Subhash Place, New Delhi. Pitampura, Delhi – 110 034. Pan No. Aaacp0874G & I.T.A. No. 6931/Del/2017 (A.Y 2013-14) P P Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, H-5, Netaji Subhash Place, Central Circle : 25, Pitampura, Delhi – 110 034. New Delhi. (Respondents) Pan No. Aaacp0874G (Appellants)

For Appellant: Shri R. R. Singla, C. AFor Respondent: Shri K. K. Mishra, Sr. D. R
Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147

novo consideration. Accordingly, we direct the ld CIT(A) to decide all the issues raised by the assessee after providing opportunity of being heard. Thus, the ground Nos. 1 and 2 are partly allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, ITA No. 6332/Del/2017 filed by the assessee ... deem it fit to remand the matter to the file of the ld CIT(A) for de-novo verification after giving the opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 12. Ordered accordingly. 13. Since we have remanded the matter to the file of the ld CIT(A), other grounds

DCIT, Central Circle- 25, New Delhi vs. P P Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 6529/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usi.T.A. No. 6332/Del/2017 (A.Y 2011-12) P P Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, H-5, Netaji Subhash Place, Central Circle : 25, Pitampura, Delhi – 110 034. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacp0874G & I.T.A. No. 6529/Del/2017 (A.Y 2011-12) Acit, Vs. P P Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle : 25, H-5, Netaji Subhash Place, New Delhi. Pitampura, Delhi – 110 034. Pan No. Aaacp0874G & I.T.A. No. 6931/Del/2017 (A.Y 2013-14) P P Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, H-5, Netaji Subhash Place, Central Circle : 25, Pitampura, Delhi – 110 034. New Delhi. (Respondents) Pan No. Aaacp0874G (Appellants)

For Appellant: Shri R. R. Singla, C. AFor Respondent: Shri K. K. Mishra, Sr. D. R
Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147

novo consideration. Accordingly, we direct the ld CIT(A) to decide all the issues raised by the assessee after providing opportunity of being heard. Thus, the ground Nos. 1 and 2 are partly allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, ITA No. 6332/Del/2017 filed by the assessee ... deem it fit to remand the matter to the file of the ld CIT(A) for de-novo verification after giving the opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 12. Ordered accordingly. 13. Since we have remanded the matter to the file of the ld CIT(A), other grounds