“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 Bombay St. Xaviers, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 2(4), Mumbai

ITA 3643/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2025AY 2023-24

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

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti B. PatelFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)

strong case on merits. Accordingly, the Appellant prays that the delay be condoned, and the appeal be decided on merits after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. II. DENIAL OF DEDUCTION/APPLICATION OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT: Assessment Year ... aside with the directions to decide the appeal preferred by the Assessee afresh after giving the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In terms of the aforesaid the Ground No.1 is allowed for statistical purpose while other grounds dismissed as having been rendered infructuous at this stage

The Bombay St. Xaviers Society, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 2(4), Mumbai

ITA 1266/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti B. PatelFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)

Ramniwas Sharma, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 2(1), Gaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed as above terms for statistical purposes

ITA 5066/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 69A

quashed. 2. That in facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in law in not granting proper opportunity of being heard due to improper service of communication u/s 250 of IT Act, 1961 which is against the principle of natural justice and procedure

Blue Breeze Trading LLP, Dlehi vs. DCIT Central Circle -27, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed in above terms for statistical purposes

ITA 5056/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 69

Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in disposing off the appeal ex-parte without granting any fair opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 2.1 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that there was reasonable cause for the appellant

Haryana Power Generation Limited, Panchkula vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS), Karnal

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3757/DEL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra Sr. DR

Section 194CSection 201(1)

material on record. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee ought to have been given sufficient opportunity of being heard. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it fit to restore the appeal to the file ... evidences. The ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide the issues afresh after considering all the documents/evidence and affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Page 2 of 4 [A.Y 2011-12] Haryana Power Generation The assessee is also directed to provide necessary information/ documents

Vishal Chitkara, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3397/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 250(6)Section 69A

Income-tax Act, 1961 and the objection of the assessee is that the CIT(A) has done so without providing proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ld. DR fairly conceded that the order of the ld. CIT(A) may be set aside for fresh adjudication ... section 250(6) of the Act. We are therefore, of the considered view that the CIT(A) ought to have given sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee and adjudicate all the grounds raised in the appeal. Considering the facts of the case, and in the interest of justice

Mukesh Kumar, Ghaziabad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1)(3), Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3330/DEL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR

substance of the grievances agitated by the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee without affording proper opportunity of being heard to assessee, without adjudicating on the ITA No. 3330/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2015-16] Mukesh Kumar Vs. ITO merits and upholding the addition ... Assessing Officer is directed to examine the veracity of facts to arrive at a decision as per law after providing adequate and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to furnish all necessary documents and details as required by the Assessing Officer. Ground

Bahadur Nagar, Neemka, Faridabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Faridabad, Haryana

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1586/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tyagi, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT- DR

Section 153A

additional evidences. The ld. AO is directed to decide the issues afresh after considering all the documents/evidence and affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to provide necessary information/ documents as required by the ld. AO. 6. In the result

DCIT, Noida vs. Ankur Mittal, Greater Noida

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as Assessee’s

ITA 1104/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 69ASection 69C

order, extracted above. Accordingly, grounds taken by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Needless to saythat assessee be given reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard.” From the above judgement of Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT it is clear that noncompliance with the directions given by Ld. PCIT

Nirvaza Enterprises Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assist. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-29, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5886/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153CSection 250

wholly on assumptions and presumptions in gross disregard of principles of natural justice without issuing any show-cause notice and without giving any opportunity of being heard. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the double additions made ... wholly on assumptions and presumptions in gross disregard of principles of natural justice without issuing any show-cause notice and without giving any opportunity of being heard. 11. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the ground

Nirvaza Enterprises Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assist. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 29, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5879/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153CSection 250

Srf Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant / Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 10(1), New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 5618/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 80Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘H’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK

Balkar Singh, Gurgoan vs. Income Tax Officer (ITO) 1(3) Gurgaon, Gurgoan

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

ITA 4342/DEL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh[Assessment Year: 2017-18] Balkar Singh Vs. Ito H.No. 183,Sector No. 17A 1(3) Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan No.Avips1931K Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Ummed Kuntal, Ca Revenue By Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2025

Section 68

examining the evidences furnished by the assessee and the contentions thereon and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court

Quadra Infratel Synergies Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle 4, Delhi, Jhandewalan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 3963/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh[Assessment Year: 2014-15] Quadra Infratel Synergies Vs. Acit Pvt. Ltd. B-6/1, Sector-05 Central Circle – 4 Rohini, Delhi Delhi Pan No. Aaecp2894G Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Saksham Singhal, Advocate Ms. Somay Jain, Ca Revenue By Ms. Nimisha Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2025 Order Per C.N. Prasad, Jm, This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Preferred Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi - 110023 [Herein After Referred As “Cit(A)”] Dated 29.06.2024 For A.Y. 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds On Validity Of Assessment Proceedings :- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ['Cit(A)'] Erred In Not Completely Allowing The Appeal Filed By The Appellant Against The Order Dated 29.03.2023 Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 1530 R.W.S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act").

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 28Section 69A

That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in passing the assessment order without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard and without providing the requisite documents (such as satisfaction note recorded by assessing officer of the search person alongwith Proforma, alleged loose sheets, etc.) to the appellant

Jekpl Pvt. Ltd. (Erstwhile Jubilant Energy (Kharsang) Pvt Ltd), Noida vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for ITA No

ITA 3250/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma& Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

No.3247 and 3250/Del/2024 ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case for AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10 (supra). Due opportunity of being heard shall be given to assessee before adjudicating the matter by way of a speaking order. All the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are therefore allowed

Jekpl Private Limited (Erstwhile Jubilant Energy (Kharsang) Pvt Ltd), Noida vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for ITA No

ITA 3247/DEL/2024[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma& Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

Srf Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-10(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1449/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 80Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘H’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK

Srf Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-10(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1448/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 80Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘H’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK

Srf Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 1, Ltu, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 4539/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C

computation of books profits back to the file of AO to decide the same in accordance with law after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall be free to file such documents, explanations, submissions as it deems fit in respect of this claim ... computation of books profits back to the file of AO to decide the same in accordance with law after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall be free to file such documents, explanations, submissions as it deems fit in respect of this claim. Accordingly

Srf Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 80/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C