“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

Colombia Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Bandra vs. Assessment Unit, NFAC

ITA 4222/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalcolombia Co-Operative Housing Vs Ito, Ward 23(1)(1), Mumbai Society Limited 5Th Floor, Piramal Chamber, C-486/B, Plot B, St. Domnie Road, Churchgate, Mumbai Bandra (West), Mumbai 400050 400012 Pan: (Aaaac2663A) Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Shri Pradip Kapasi, Ca Respondent By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. Dr (Virtually Present) Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/ 250/2025-26/1076003708(1) Dated 02.05.2025 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 18.03.2024 For Ay 2015-16. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “Ground No. 1: Reopening & Reassessment A. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Ld.Ao Of Reopening & Reassessment. Your Appellant Prays That The Reopening & 2

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 149(1)Section 45

GROUND NO. 3: Violation of Natural Justice A. The Ld. CIT(A) again erred in law and on facts in completely denying the opportunity of being heard during the course of appeal, virtually or physically as was required by the law, rules, SOP and the decisions of the Court ... inconvenience. GROUND NO. 3: Violation of Natural Justice A. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by denying the appellant an opportunity of being heard (virtual/physical), ignoring detailed written submissions and evidence, and upholding an assessment order vitiated by gross violation of principles of natural justice. The assessment

M/S Krish Cereals (P) Ltd., Haryana vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Haryana

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

ITA 5234/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Deepesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr.DR

decided the issue based on the material available on record. In our considered view, assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard. 4. For the sake of complete justice, we are inclined to remit this issue back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to give one more

Sumer Singh, Rewari vs. ITO, Rewari (Jao), Rewari

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

ITA 5214/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sumer Singh (Self Assessee)For Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, SR. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 250

assessee has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, it has been submitted by the Ld. AR that no proper opportunity of being heard was given by the Ld. CIT(A) and the appeal was dismissed ex-parte. Reasons of non-compliance before Ld. CIT(A) have been

Gsas Enterprises Private Limited, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward-10(1), Delhi, C.R. Building, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 4697/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalgsas Enterprises Private Vs Income Tax Officer, (Ito) Limited, 9896, Sector-C, Ward-10(1), Delhi Pocket-9, Vasant Kunj, South West Delhi, Delhi- 110070, Pan: Aamcs0427L Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Sanju Kumari, Adv Revenue By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/12/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal

Section 144Section 147

with a direction to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the Appeal afresh on its merits in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 6. In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court

National Housing Bank, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 16(1) Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 4695/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalnational Housing Bank Vs Dcit Core-5A, 3Rd-5Th Floor, Indian Circle 16(10 Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabcn2600H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Ms. Anju Goel, Ca Revenue By Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/12/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.

Section 144BSection 147Section 36(1)(viia)

Appeal. 2 National Housing Bank Vs. DCIT 3. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has provided no opportunity of being heard to the Assessee and in violation of principals of natural justice, dismissed the appeal of the Assessee. 4. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental ... with a direction to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the Appeal afresh on its merits in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 6. In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court

DCIT, Delhi vs. Sushil Goel, Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3490/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.3014/Del/2023 (Assessment Year 2020-21)

Section 1Section 115BSection 153Section 153ASection 250Section 69A

sheet, a copy of the draft assessment order, covering letter filed in the relevant miscellaneous records folder. Even, it is noted that due opportunity of being heard should be given to the assessee by the supervisory officer giving approval to the proposed block assessment, at least one month before

DCIT, Delhi vs. Sushil Goel, Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3488/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.3014/Del/2023 (Assessment Year 2020-21)

Section 1Section 115BSection 153Section 153ASection 250Section 69A

Sushil Goel, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-29, Jhandewalan, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3014/DEL/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.3014/Del/2023 (Assessment Year 2020-21)

Section 1Section 115BSection 153Section 153ASection 250Section 69A

Sushil Goel, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-29, Jhandewalan, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3013/DEL/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.3014/Del/2023 (Assessment Year 2020-21)

Section 1Section 115BSection 153Section 153ASection 250Section 69A

DCIT, Circle-21(1), New Delhi vs. Religare Securities Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 7556/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Dcit, M/S Religare Securities Ltd., Circle-21(1), 2Nd Floor, Room No. 202 B, Vs Rajlok Building, 24, 2Nd Floor, C.R. Building, I.P. Nehru Place, Estate, New Delhi-110019. New Delhi Pan- Aaacf1952D Revenue Assessee

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

this sort has happened Also it is evident from the assessment order itself that the assessee in spite of being given sufficient opportunity of being heard the assessee couldn't furnish the complete details as called for by the A.O. Therefore, the assessee failed to establish that it was prevented ... afresh after verifying the documents produced by the assessee in accordance with law. Needless to say, the assessee shall be provided with an opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, the Ground No. 3 to 3.3 of the assessee in I.T.A. No.4796/Del/2017 is allowed for statistical purpose.” 16.3 As discussed above

Shri Luxmi Rice Mill, Rudrapur vs. ITO Ward 2(2)(4), Bajpur

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 207/DDN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Ms. Shivangi Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amar Pal Singh, JCIT-DR

Section 147

file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the Appeals afresh on its merits in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 6. In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in the Open

Savitri Devi, Dehradun vs. ITO Ward 1(1)(3), Dehradun

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 206/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun19 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Sahni, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amar Pal Singh, JCIT-DR

Section 144

restore the issue to the file of the A.O. for de-novo assessment. Needless to say, the A.O. shall provide opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before passing the assessment order in accordance with law. The Assessee is also directed to participate in assessment proceedings without fail

Sarita Agarwal, Nainital vs. ACIT Circle 2(1)(1), Haldwani

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 204/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun19 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Sh. Upendra Singh Negi, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 69A

Tejpal Singh, Uttarkhand vs. ITO Roorkee -247667, Roorkeee

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 201/DDN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun19 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 69A

Dinesh Singh Kumar, Roorkee vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(4) Roorkee, Roorkee

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 194/DDN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun19 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Poonam Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 147

with a 3 Dinesh Singh Kumar direction to decide the Appeals afresh on its merits in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. The Assessee is also directed to participate in the Appellate Proceedings without fail. 6. In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue

Ankit Ramola, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 190/DDN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Poonam Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 69

with a direction to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the Appeal afresh on its merits in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. Assessee is also directed to appear and co-operate with the 1st Appellate proceedings without fail. 6. In the result

Milakh Raaj, Nainital vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Haldwani

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 144/DDN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun19 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 69A

restore the issue to the file of the A.O. for de- novo assessment. Needless to say, the A.O. shall provide opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before passing the assessment order in accordance with law. The Assessee is also directed to participate in assessment proceedings without fail

Yogendra Sharma, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Etah

In the result, the appeal preferred by assessee is allowed

ITA 408/AGR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Yogendra Sharma, I-4695, 2Nd Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Floor, Gali No. 4-B, Balbir Nagar Ward 3(2), Etah. Extension, Shahdara, Delhi. Pan :Cgkps6492J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

permissible. 10. Because having regard to the facts and circumstances to the case the Learned JCIT(Appeals) failed to provide proper and effective opportunity of being heard prior to enhancement as mandated under section 251(2); no cogent reasons have been recorded as required under section 250(6). The enhancement

Nazir Ahmad Bhat, Anantnag vs. ITO, Anantnag

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 274/ASR/2025[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar19 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Vaseem Ahmad, C. A

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 251(2)

credit entries as appearing in bank statement and to fully cooperate in appellate proceedings. 10. The assessee will be allowed fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard and notice to be issued u/s 282 of the Act and also in email id of the counsel ahmadcavaseem@gmail.com . 11. We have

Nazir Ahmad Bhat, Anantnag vs. ITO, Anantnag

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 273/ASR/2025[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar19 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Vaseem Ahmad, C. A

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 251(2)