← 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

Veer Sawarkar Katyal, Delhi vs. ITO Ward -43 (6), Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 8834/DEL/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2007-08 Veer Sawarkar Katyal, Vs Ito, 329, Sainik Vihar, Ward 43(6), Pitampura, Delhi. Rani Bagh, New Delhi – 110 034. Pan: Abdpk7569E

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Chaudhary, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 254

initiation of reassessment proceedings and making the addition. The Assessing Officer shall decide the issue as per fact and law, after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes

Manoj Kumar, Bhiwani vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2, Bhiwani

In the result, assesse’s appeal is disposed of for statistical purpose

ITA 8820/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shuklaita No.8802/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16)

Section 144Section 144o

Appellate Authority, under these facts and circumstances of the matter and for the end of justice we would like to grant a further opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The appeal is disposed by remitting the issue to the file of Ld. AO for adjudication the same afresh upon ... granting opportunities of being heard to the assessee and upon considering the evidence and /or evidences which the assessee may choose to file at the time of hearing of the case. We also make it clear that in the event assessee does not co-operate with

Manoj Kumar, Bhiwani vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2, Bhiwani

In the result, assesse’s appeal is disposed of for statistical purpose

ITA 8802/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shuklaita No.8802/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16)

Section 144Section 144o

Appellate Authority, under these facts and circumstances of the matter and for the end of justice we would like to grant a further opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The appeal is disposed by remitting the issue to the file of Ld. AO for adjudication the same afresh upon ... granting opportunities of being heard to the assessee and upon considering the evidence and /or evidences which the assessee may choose to file at the time of hearing of the case. We also make it clear that in the event assessee does not co-operate with

Bmr Overseas Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 4(2), C.R. Building Delhi 110002, Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6646/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Bmr Overseas Limited, Vs. Dcit, Circle 4(2), Zb-33/487, Plot No. 4 & 5, C.R. Building, Dilshad Garde New Delhi Industrial Area, Shahdara, Delhi – 110 095 [Pan No. Aafcb8509D) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 143Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 156Section 157ASection 68

case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in passing the order without giving assessee an opportunity of being heard, in violation of the principle of natural justice. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

Dharambir Khattar, Gurgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6, New Delhi

In the result, both the Assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5921/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Bleita Nos. 5794 & 5921/Del/2025 Asstt. Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 Dharmbir Khattar, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-6, 54, Sukhchain Marg, Dlf E-2, Ara Centre, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Jhandewalan, Harayana New Delhi – 55 (Pan: Aampk7881M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Yogesh Jagia, Adv. & Sh. Manoj Gupta, Ca & Sh. Kundan D. Wahi, Ca Respondent By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Sh. Yogesh Jagia, Adv. & Sh. Manoj Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 250

remit back the issues to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) in both the appeals, for fresh adjudication, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee is also directed through the Ld. AR to fully cooperate with the Ld. CIT(A) during the proceedings and canvass

Dharambir Khattar, Gurgaon vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, New Delhi

In the result, both the Assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5794/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Bleita Nos. 5794 & 5921/Del/2025 Asstt. Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 Dharmbir Khattar, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-6, 54, Sukhchain Marg, Dlf E-2, Ara Centre, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Jhandewalan, Harayana New Delhi – 55 (Pan: Aampk7881M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Yogesh Jagia, Adv. & Sh. Manoj Gupta, Ca & Sh. Kundan D. Wahi, Ca Respondent By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Sh. Yogesh Jagia, Adv. & Sh. Manoj Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 250

remit back the issues to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) in both the appeals, for fresh adjudication, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee is also directed through the Ld. AR to fully cooperate with the Ld. CIT(A) during the proceedings and canvass

Gyan Adhar Welfare Society, Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 5631/DEL/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 11Section 12ASection 80G

whose rejection is challenged herein. 4. That the Ld. CIT(Exemptions) has grossly violated the Principles of Natural Justice by not providing the opportunity of being heard to the assessee to adequately represent his case and Bonafide for claiming the registration under the provisions of Section ... whose rejection is challenged herein. 4. That the Ld. CIT(Exemptions) has grossly violated the Principles of Natural Justice by not providing the opportunity of being heard to the assessee to adequately represent his case and Bonafide for allowing the benefit of provisions of Section 80G to its generous donors

Gyan Adhar Welfare Society, Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 5630/DEL/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 11Section 12ASection 80G

whose rejection is challenged herein. 4. That the Ld. CIT(Exemptions) has grossly violated the Principles of Natural Justice by not providing the opportunity of being heard to the assessee to adequately represent his case and Bonafide for claiming the registration under the provisions of Section ... whose rejection is challenged herein. 4. That the Ld. CIT(Exemptions) has grossly violated the Principles of Natural Justice by not providing the opportunity of being heard to the assessee to adequately represent his case and Bonafide for allowing the benefit of provisions of Section 80G to its generous donors

Base Exports Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 73(3), Delhi

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

ITA 5290/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT (DR)
Section 194Section 194CSection 196Section 250Section 250HSection 3(3)(a)

before the expiry of the time granted to file the paper book, thereby denying the assessee a fair opportunity of being heard and hence the order is passed against the principles of natural justice. 3. That the Learned Income Tax Officer has failed to appreciate that Appellant Company should ... been granted an opportunity to file written submissions on or before 05.06.2025 by the Ld. CIT(A). Thus the assessee was denied the opportunity of being heard. 3 | P a g e 5290_DEL_2025_Base Exports Private Limited 4. In view of these facts and circumstances

Ajit Singh, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 35(5), Delhi

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

ITA 2691/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. S.Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumar**

Section 147Section 148Section 250

order of the Ld. NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. - 4. The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the opportunity of being heard was not provided by the lower authorities. The Learned authorized representative for Department of Revenue submitted that departmental authorities have passed reasoned orders ... decided on merit as per the provision of the section 250 of the Act. The appeal was decided ex-parte without giving the opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Amrit Banaspati Company Ltd., Noida

Appeals are partly allowed in the foregoing terms

ITA 4925/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 43(1)

facts and in law in not appreciating that the aforesaid disallowance of royalty, was made by the assessing officer without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 3. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not deleting the addition of Rs.2

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Amrit Banaspati Company Ltd., Noida

ITA 4924/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 43(1)

facts and in law in not appreciating that the aforesaid disallowance of royalty, was made by the assessing officer without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 3. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not deleting the addition of Rs.2

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Amrit Banaspati Company Ltd., Noida

Appeals are partly allowed in the foregoing terms

ITA 4923/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 43(1)

facts and in law in not appreciating that the aforesaid disallowance of royalty, was made by the assessing officer without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 3. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not deleting the addition of Rs.2

Amrit Banaspati Company Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

Appeals are partly allowed in the foregoing terms

ITA 3434/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 43(1)

facts and in law in not appreciating that the aforesaid disallowance of royalty, was made by the assessing officer without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 3. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not deleting the addition of Rs.2

Amrit Banaspati Company Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

Appeals are partly allowed in the foregoing terms

ITA 3433/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 43(1)

facts and in law in not appreciating that the aforesaid disallowance of royalty, was made by the assessing officer without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 3. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not deleting the addition of Rs.2

Amrit Banaspati Company Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

Appeals are partly allowed in the foregoing terms

ITA 3432/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 43(1)

facts and in law in not appreciating that the aforesaid disallowance of royalty, was made by the assessing officer without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 3. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not deleting the addition of Rs.2

Shanti Devi Jain Memorial Trust, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Ward Exemption, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1293/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Years: 2013-14

Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 80G

order passed by CIT(A) are against the principles of natural justice and the same has been passed without affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard. Page 2 of 7 M/s Shanti Devi Jain Memorial Trust 8. That the interest U/s 234A & 234B has been wrongly and illegally charged

Vaishnavi Maa Traders, Bhimtal vs. Income Tax Officer, Assessment Unit, Delhi

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

ITA 25/DDN/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Vaishnavi Maa Traders Vs Ito Talital Bhimtal, Nainital, Assessment Unit, Uttarakhand Nfac, Delhi Pan-Aabav6386L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Saurabh Gupta, Ca Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.11.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 24.03.2023 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018- 19. 2. At The Outset, It Is Seen That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Dismissed By The Ld. Cit(A) For Non-Prosecution. Before Us, The Ld. Ar Submitted That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Issued Notices On Wrong Email Address & Since The Assessee Was Not Aware About The Notices, Therefore, The Compliance Could Not Be Made Either Before The Ao Or Before The Cit(A). He Thus, Prayed That The Matter May Be Sent Back To The File Of The Ao For Fresh Adjudication.

Section 147Section 250

assessee and the matter is restored to the file of the AO with direction to pass the order denovo afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to participate in proceedings before the AO and file all the requisite details. With these

Preet Pal Singh, Doiwala vs. I T O Ward1(1)(2), Dehradun

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

ITA 243/DDN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Preet Pal Singh Vs Ito 191,Rishikesh Road, Ward-1(1)(2) Doiwala, Dehradun, Dehradun Uttarakhand Pan-Aqaps0643K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rajiv Sahni, Ca Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.11.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 12.12.2022 Passed U/S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. At The Outset, It Is Seen That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Dismissed By The Ld. Cit(A) For Non-Prosecution. Before Us, The Ld. Ar Submitted That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Issued Notices On Wrong Email Address & Since The Assessee Was Not Aware About The Notices, Therefore, The Compliance Could Not Be Made Either Before The Ao Or Before The Cit(A). He Thus, Prayed That The Matter May Be Sent Back To The File Of The Ao For Fresh Adjudication.

Section 144Section 250

assessee and the matter is restored to the file of the AO with direction to pass the order denovo afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to participate in proceedings before the AO and file all the requisite details. With these

Shri Tariq Ahmad Dar, Anantnag vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Udhampur

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

ITA 422/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Mohd. Iqbal Untoo, C.A
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 210Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 69A

source of cash deposit in bank during demonetization and to fully cooperate with the appellate authorities. 10. The assessee will be allowed reasonable opportunity of being heard. 11. We have not expressed any opinion on merits. 6 I.T.A. No. 422/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 12. In the result, the appeal