“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

Luxottica India Eyewear Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1492/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwalluxottica India Eyewear Pvt. Ltd., Asst. Cit, 7Th Floor, Dlf Building No.9, Circle-15(2), Tower-B, Phase-Iii, Dlf Cyber Vs. New Delhi. City, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana. Pan-Aabcl3871C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Adv., Ca Department By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jaiswal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.01.2015 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.144C(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’) In Compliance To The Direction Given By Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Vide Order Dated 15.12.2014 For Asst. Year 2010-11. 2. In The Present Appeal, The Co-Ordinate Bench Vide Order Dated 26.05.2017 In Ita No.1492/Del/2015 Has Remand The Issue Of Tp Adjustment Towards Alleged Amp Expenses To The File Of Tpo To Decide Afresh With Certain Directions, However, Luxottica India Eyewear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Ground In Respect Of Tp Adjustment Made Towards International Transactions Of Import Of Finished Goods Remained Un-Adjudicated.

Section 143(3)Section 92C

economic adjustment claim made by the assessee, regarding computation of margins of the assessee, non consideration of supplementary transaction and denial of adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee by the authorities below as well as their failure to examine the contentions and arguments of the assessee in this ... aside the matter to the file of the Ld. TPO for his fresh consideration and decide the issue afresh after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee and discussing their submissions in the order and reasons, if any, for not agreeing or Luxottica India Eyewear Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT

Ramkrushna Sharda Sevashram, Anjar-Kachchh vs. CIT (Exemption), Rajkot

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

ITA 528/RJT/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Dec 2025

For Appellant: Ms. Chaunauti Dholakia, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)

Section 11Section 12(1)(ac)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

present application is non-maintainable. 4 Ground 5 The Learned CIT(Exemption) erred in law in rejecting the present application without giving proper opportunity of being heard. 6 The appellant trust craves the leave to add, amend, alter, vary OR withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal before

Raj Kumar Singh, Patna vs. ITO, Ward-6(4), Patna

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

ITA 341/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 250

assessment is erroneous, illegal, and unsupported by evidence. 4. For that the Hon'ble CIT (A) has erred in not allowing proper opportunity of being heard which is arbitrary, wrong, illegal and unjustified. 5. For that the Hon'ble CIT (A) has erred in not taking cognition of the submissions ... well as the Ld. CIT(A), in the interest of justice and fair play it was considered that one more opportunity of being heard may be provided. Hence, after examining the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order

Ipf Vikram India Private Limited, Chandigarh vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Panchkula

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

ITA 1204/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148

order and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 11. In the result, appeal of the Assessee

M/S Akshaj Infra Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 725/CHANDI/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Dec 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 132Section 153A(1)(b)Section 68

repeated opportunities granted, the Assessee failed to appear before this Bench on the scheduled dates of hearing and did not avail the opportunity of being heard. 8.1 We take serious note of the fact that this matter has been pending for over 10 years. Given the significant passage of time

Gita Sharma, Durgapur vs. I.T.O., Ward - 2(4), Durgapur

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

ITA 2267/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

matter back to the Ld. AO for making the reassessment de novo. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission she wants to make and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. Accordingly, the grounds taken by the assessee

Kiran Educational Trust, Purba Medinipur vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 1897/KOL/2025[-------]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

Exemption) is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to him for deciding the application afresh after granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after allowing an opportunity to the assessee to furnish the details sought in respect of the queries raised and thereafter consider

Loksakha Welfare Society, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 1883/KOL/2025[----]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

ground of ostensible delay in filing application for renewal. 4. The CIT (E) erred in not affording the Appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard as mandated by the provisions of section 80G(5) of the Act thereby violating the basic principles of natural justice. 5. The CIT (E) erred ... Exemption) is set aside and the matter is remanded to him for deciding the application afresh after granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, allowing an opportunity to the assessee to furnish the details in respect of the queries raised and thereafter consider the application in accordance with

Jhagru Baba Foundation Tollygunge Darbar Society, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exmption), Kolkata

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

ITA 1830/KOL/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Dec 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Respondent: Dr. Anup Biswas, CIT-DR

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

deciding the application afresh following the directions of the Tribunal given in the cases referred to supra, after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and considering the reply to be filed by the assessee. The ld. CIT(E) shall pass a speaking order

Gyan Prakash Gupta, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 43(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1567/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 37

fair play, the request of the assessee to remand the case before the Ld. AO may be allowed so that a proper opportunity of being heard may be provided. Hence, after examining the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to I.T.A. No.: 1567/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Gyan ... matter back to the Ld. AO for making the reassessment de novo. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission it wants to make in support of its grounds of appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. Accordingly

R 1177 Thirumalapadi Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd, Thirumalaipadi vs. Income Tax Officer, Perambalur

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

ITA 3791/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Mr.G.Reddi Prakash, C.AFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 80P

remit the matter back to the file of the NFAC for de novo disposal of appeal 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. 8.0 Since the appeal

Vivid Weaves, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward 8(2), Chennai

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2966/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri George George K & Hon’Ble Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Years: 2018-19 Vivid Weaves, Income Tax Officer, No.374, 22Nd Cross Street, Non-Corporate Ward-8(2), Ashtalakshmi Nagar, Chennai. Alapakkam, Chennai-600 116. [Pan: Aalfv7593E] Appellant) Respondent Assessee By : Mr.G.Tarun, Advocate. Revenue By : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2025 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.G.Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)

matter back to the file of the AO to examine the claim of the appellant in accordance with the law after affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Hence, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. 6.0 In this result, the appeal

Jagathesh, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-1(1), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1566/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1565/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1566/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT

Section 115BSection 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 183Section 197Section 271ASection 69A

follows: 5. Under section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal may, after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit. The power of the Tribunal in dealing with appeals is, thus, expressed in the widest

Jagathesh, Chennai vs. Aacit, Ncc-11(1), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1565/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT

Section 115BSection 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 183Section 197Section 271ASection 69A

Id Care Trust, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions), Bangalore

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

ITA 1626/BANG/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2024-25

For Appellant: Shri Madhukeshwar Hegde, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT-DR

Section 12A

Ld.CIT(E) and remit this issue to the file of the Ld.CIT(E) for denovo consideration of the issue after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open

Adhi Ganesh Mandir Charitable Trust, Borivali West vs. Income Tax Department, Mumbai

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

ITA 6720/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

bringing only the net income, if any, to tax in accordance with law. 11. The Assessing Officer shall afford the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to place on record all relevant material in support of its claim of expenditure. With these directions, the appeal of the assessee

Vasant Ganesh Marathe, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5796/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryvasant Ganesh Marathe Ito Ward 19(2)(2) Room No. 70, Moiddin Chawl, Kautilya Bhavan Kalina Village, Santacruz East Vs. Bandra East Mumbai-400 057. Mumbai-400 051. Pan : Ajnpm5644C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Suresh Otwani, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Praveen K. Srivastav, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/12/2025 O R D E R Per Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) :-

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Otwani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen K. Srivastav

Section 144

inclined to remand instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision on merit, suffice to say by affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 3. This Court also deem it appropriate to direct the Assessee to comply with the notices to be issued

Meera Prakash Tewani, United Kingdom vs. DCIT, Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai

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

ITA 5751/MUM/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrymeera Prakash Tewani Dcit, C-41-43 12, David Way, Bishopton Bkc, Gilban Area Startford Upon Avon, Cv370Ug, Vs. Bandra East United Kingdom Mumbai-400 051. Uk-999 999 Pan : Abjpt5911D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Rupal Shrimal Revenue By : Shri Praveen K. Srivastav Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2025 Date Of : 30/12/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) :-

For Appellant: Ms. Rupal ShrimalFor Respondent: Shri Praveen K

Section 144Section 147Section 69C

Officer {JAO}. Thus, the case is remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard. 4 Meera Prakash Tewani 7. The assessee is also directed to file relevant submissions/ documents before the Assessing Officer. It is clarified that

Shri Vipul Bansal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 7(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5628/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 69C

Assessing Officer with a direction to carry out a de novo examination on the limited aspect of factual reconciliation, after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 64. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the addition, and all contentions

DCIT CC 8( 2) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Jaslok Hospital and Research Centre, Mumbai

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed, and the assessment order dated 25

ITA 4351/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 250Section 254Section 80G

with a specific direction to adjudicate first the additional ground relating to limitation and thereafter the other grounds on merits, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard. 9. Pursuant to the directions of the Co-ordinate Bench, the learned CIT(A) initiated fresh appellate proceedings and issued notices under section