← 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

Sudisa Foundry Private Limited, Jamshedpur vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Jamshedpur

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 147/RAN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

issues in the present appeals are restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. This is subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000/- per appeal deposited with Jharkhand Income Tax Bar Association

Sudisa Foundry Private Limited, Jamshedpur vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Jamshedpur

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 146/RAN/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

issues in the present appeals are restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. This is subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000/- per appeal deposited with Jharkhand Income Tax Bar Association

Sudisa Foundry Private Limited, Jamshedpur vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Jamshedpur

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 145/RAN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

issues in the present appeals are restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. This is subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000/- per appeal deposited with Jharkhand Income Tax Bar Association

Deepak Vegpro (P) Ltd, Alwar vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Alwar

ITA 1286/JPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Learned Cit(A). Since The Assessee Did Not Get Any Respite There, The Assessee Company Is In Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Brij Lal Meena, Addl. CIT

Deepak Vegpro (P) Ltd., Alwar. 13. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances, we deem it a fit case to afford another opportunity of being heard to the assessee before the Assessing Officer, who shall decide the matter afresh, while taking into consideration the entire relevant material relating ... discussion, this appeal is disposed for statistical purposes, and the matter is remitted to the Assessing Officer for decision afresh to afford another opportunity of being heard to the assessee, and the Assessing Officer shall decide the matter afresh, while taking into consideration the entire relevant material relating

Shrimad Dayanand Shiksha Samiti, Bhilwara vs. CIT(E), Jaipur, Jpr

20. In view of the above discussion, reasons and findings, both these appeals are disposed for statistical purpose and both the applications i

ITA 1003/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Learned Cit(E), On 12.01.2019. Said Application Earlier Came To Be Rejected Vide Order Dated 31.07.2019. Feeling Aggrieved By The Rejection Of Shrimad Dayanad Shiksha Samiti, Bhilwara. That Application U/S 12Aa Of The Act, The Applicant Society Had Come Up In Appeal- Ita No. 1062/Jpr/2019. While Disposing Of That Appeal For Statistical Purpose, Coordinate Bench Of Itat, Jaipur Benches Restored The Application U/S 12Aa Of The Act To The Files Of Learned Cit(E) For Afresh Examination Of The Issue In Question & To Act, Accordingly.

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 12Section 12ASection 80G

that the matters may be restored to files of Learned CIT(E) so as to enable the applicant society to provide another opportunity of being heard, including an opportunity of providing of requisite documents/information for decision afresh. Ld. DR for the department did not raise any objection to the said

Shrimad Dayanand Shiksha Samiti, Bhilwara vs. CIT(E), Jaipur

20. In view of the above discussion, reasons and findings, both these appeals are disposed for statistical purpose and both the applications i

ITA 1002/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Learned Cit(E), On 12.01.2019. Said Application Earlier Came To Be Rejected Vide Order Dated 31.07.2019. Feeling Aggrieved By The Rejection Of Shrimad Dayanad Shiksha Samiti, Bhilwara. That Application U/S 12Aa Of The Act, The Applicant Society Had Come Up In Appeal- Ita No. 1062/Jpr/2019. While Disposing Of That Appeal For Statistical Purpose, Coordinate Bench Of Itat, Jaipur Benches Restored The Application U/S 12Aa Of The Act To The Files Of Learned Cit(E) For Afresh Examination Of The Issue In Question & To Act, Accordingly.

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 12Section 12ASection 80G

that the matters may be restored to files of Learned CIT(E) so as to enable the applicant society to provide another opportunity of being heard, including an opportunity of providing of requisite documents/information for decision afresh. Ld. DR for the department did not raise any objection to the said

M/S Aabdeen Travel Services, Kanpur vs. ITO-1(3)(1), Kanpur

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

ITA 400/LKW/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 68

time of hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the impugned order of learned CIT(A) was passed without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant assessee. Further, he also contended that the impugned order of learned CIT(A) did not meet the requirement of passing

Kloeckner Desma Machinery Pvt Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. Dy. CIT, Circle 2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 578/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Chavda, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT.DR
Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(i)

DCIT] A.Y. 2017-18 - 3 – 3.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not granting opportunity of being heard conferencing. 3.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that granting opportunity of being heard via video conferencing facility is mandatory ... regime of Faceless appeal process. 3.3 The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have granted opportunity of being heard via videoconferencing. 4.1 The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” 3. The solitary issue in the present appeal

Masudha Begam, Perambalur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Trichy

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

ITA 3831/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri George George K & Before Hon’Ble Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Mr.P.Venkatesan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 147Section 148

matter back to the file of the NFAC for de novo disposal of appeal on merits in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 7.0 In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Page

Kadalaikattupudur Pacs, Tiruppur vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Tiruppur

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

ITA 2596/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Senthil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. AnItha, Addl. C.I.T
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80P

petition u/s.119(2)(b) of the Act dated 14.02.2025, and in accordance with law, after :-4-: ITA. No:2596 /Chny/2025 affording reasonable opportunity of being heard. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, the appeal filed

United India Insuance Co Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT 3, Chennai

In the result, the appeals for AY 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2017-18 are

ITA 683/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2026AY 2017-18
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44

corrigendum to the order under section 263 of the Act giving fresh directions. He submits that the Id. PCIT failed to provide an opportunity of being heard before passing the corrigendum order. He further submits that the Id. PCIT erred in directing and setting aside the issue of disallowance

United India Insurance Co Ltd, Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai

ITA 430/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2026AY 2017-18
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'डी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री एस.एस. विश्वनेत्र रवि

United India Insurance Co.Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT-3, Chennai

In the result, the appeals for AY 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2017-18 are

ITA 183/CHNY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi&

For Appellant: Shri S. Sundararaman, CA
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44

corrigendum to the order under section 263 of the Act giving fresh directions. He submits that the Id. PCIT failed to provide an opportunity of being heard before passing the corrigendum order. He further submits that the Id. PCIT erred in directing and setting aside the issue of disallowance

United India Insurance Co Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT-3, Chennai

In the result, the appeals for AY 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2017-18 are partly allowed and appeals for AY 2015-16 & 2017-18 (in ITA No

ITA 182/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1759/Chny/2019, 182 & 183/Chny/2021, 430/Chny/2022 & 683/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of O/O The Chief Manager, Cfac Income Tax – 3, Department, Head Office, United India Chennai 600 034. Nalanda, Door No. 19, Ground Floor, 4Th Lane, Utamar Gandhi Salai, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaacu5552C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sundararaman, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Pushpa, Sr. Standing Counsel (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: The Appeal In Ita No. 1759/Chny/2019 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.03.2019 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2014- 15. The Appeals In Ita No. 182 & 183/Chny/2021 Are Filed By The Assessee Against Different Orders Both Dated 28.03.2021 Passed By The Ld. Pcit-3, Chennai For The Assessment 2015-16 & 2016-17. The 2

For Appellant: Shri S. Sundararaman, CAFor Respondent: Ms. V. Pushpa, Sr. Standing Counsel
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44

corrigendum to the order under section 263 of the Act giving fresh directions. He submits that the ld. PCIT failed to provide an opportunity of being heard before passing the corrigendum order. He further submits that the ld. PCIT erred in directing and setting aside the issue of disallowance

United India Insurance Co.Ltd, Chennai vs. PCIT-3, Chennai

ITA 1759/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2026AY 2014-15
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44

2 I.T.A. No.1759/Chny/19 & Ors United India Insurance appeal in ITA No. 430/Chny/2022 is filed by the assessee against the order

Aquila Heights Apartment Owners Association, Bangalore vs. Dc/ACIT, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 2026/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 143(1)Section 154

appellant was efficient and not grossly negligent. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have provided an adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant and discussed the case on merits instead of dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay. 4. That the learned Commissioner ... Principle of Mutuality. 5. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in not providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 6. The adjustment made in the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act involves issues that require detailed examination

Envirnment Sewa Foundation, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is bearing ITA

ITA 6773/MUM/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 4Section 80G

pass a reasoned and 6 Environment Sewa Foundation, Mumbai speaking order in accordance with law, after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is bearing ITA No.6773/Mum/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court

Siemens Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6678/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishsiemens Limited Asst. Dit, Cpc Birla Aurora, Level 21, Plot No. 1080, Income Tax Department, Vs. Dr. Annie Beseant Road, Worli, Bengaluru – 560 500 Mumbai-400 030 Pan/Gir No. (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Jeet Kamdar Respondent By : Shri Arun Kanti Datta Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.01.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.08.2025, Passed By Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2020-21. 2. The Dispute In The Present Appeal Is Confined To Addition Of An Amount Of Rs.6,62,28,591/-, Representing Interest Charged U/S. 23 Of The Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (Msmed Act).

For Appellant: Shri Jeet KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta
Section 143(1)Section 23

subsequently been reversed, there cannot be any addition of the said amount. While deciding the issue, the A.O. is required to provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, grounds are allowed for statistical purpose. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced

Seema Pritam Sharma, Mumbai vs. I.T.O Ward 2(2), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6595/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishseema Pritam Sharma Ito Ward 2(2) Omkar Complex, Mohan Plaza, Near Poddar School, Kalyan D. C. S.O Vs. Vaile Nagar, Khadakpada, Kalyan, Thane-421 301 Kalyan (W)-421 301 Pan/Gir No. Fagps 9995 P (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Bharat Kumar Respondent By : Shri Arun Kanti Datta Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.01.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.08.2025, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac For Short) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2022- 23. 2. The Primary Grievance Of The Assessee Is In Respect Of Dismissal Of Her Appeal In Limine By The First Appellate Authority Without Condoning Delay Of 305 Days.

For Appellant: Shri Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta

first appellate authority and restore the matter back to his file for de novo adjudication on merits after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We 3 Seema Pritam Sharma vs. ITO further direct the assessee to co-operate in finalizing the proceedings. Hence, the grounds

Vatsalya B Wing Co Operative Society Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 20(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeals are allowed and Ground No

ITA 6574/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Section 143(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

aside with the directions to adjudicate the grounds raised by the Assessee in appeal on merits after granting the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Assessee is also directed to file details, documents & submission in support of its claims/contentions before the Learned CIT(A). The Learned ... with the directions to adjudicate the grounds raised by the Assessee in the respective appeal on merits after granting the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Assessee is also directed to file details, documents & submission in support of its claims/contentions before the Learned CIT(A). The Learned