“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

Usha Yadav, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer Range 6(2), Lucknow

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

ITA 251/LKW/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow09 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 10(37)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 271(1)(c)

notice u/s 148 of the Act was not served upon the assessee and the ex parte assessment was made without giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Further, it is stated that the assessee had entered into an agreement to sell and had in fact transferred her rights

Usha Yadav, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer Range 6(2), Lucknow

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

ITA 249/LKW/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow09 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 10(37)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 271(1)(c)

Parvatbhai Baria, Gujarat vs. ITO, Ward 1, Godhra, Gujarat

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

ITA 1583/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1583/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2018-2019 Parvatbhai Baria, The Income Tax Officer, बनामVs. 818, Vavdi Gam, Ward-1, Dahod Highway, Godhra. Vavdi Buzurg, Panchmahal-389001. Gujarat.

For Appellant: Shri Abbas Gulamhusianwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saresh Kartik Laxmanbhai, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250(6)Section 270ASection 45

Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi ["CIT(A)"] erred in fact and in law in dismissing the appeal without granting proper opportunity of being heard before disposal of the matter to the appellant. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action ... proper adjudication after verifying all relevant details furnished by the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee shall be afforded due opportunity of being heard in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Asst. Year

Navnath Mahadev Kunjir, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(5) Pune, Pune

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

ITA 2083/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. VazeFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Haladkar

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144

adjudicate all the issues raised by the assessee afresh on merits as per fact and law after giving one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee shall provide his full support by furnishing its reply/details/evidences as may be required or called upon

M/S Gera Developments Pvt. Ltd, Pune vs. PCIT (Central), Pune

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

ITA 1053/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad vs. Dhananjay Babruvan Kender, Beed

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

ITA 1032/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20 Dcit, Aurangabad Dhananjay Babruvan Kender Bunglow No.69, Yogeshwari Nagari Vs. Ring Road, Ambajogai, Beed – 431517 Pan: Bwlpk1384D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-12-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 69Section 69C

direction to call for a remand report from the Assessing Officer then decide the issue as per fact and law after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 18. So far as the two decisions relied on by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee are concerned, we find ... file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the issues afresh and in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the Revenue are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 21. In the result

Gopal Kundu Roy, Siliguri vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Siliguri

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

ITA 2263/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2263/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Gopal Kundu Roy,……………………………….…Appellant ‘Hare Krishna Bhawan’, P.O. Rabindra Sarani, Rathkhola Bazar, Siliguri-734006, West Bengal [Pan:Acgpr0359H] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-1(3), Siliguri, Aayakar Bhawan, Paribahan Nagar, Matigara, Dist. Darjeeling-734010, W.B.

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

back to the file of ld. Assessing Officer to examine the issues afresh and pass the order on merits after providing one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before

Anisur Rahaman, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 42(1), Murshidabad

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

ITA 1818/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Ms. Madhu Malati Ghosh, CIT-DR

appeal are restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for readjudication the issues afresh on merits after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee is directed to cooperate in the readjudication proceedings positively. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Raghvendra Singh, Howrah vs. Income Tax Officer, Bamboo Villa, Calcutta

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

ITA 1763/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1763/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Raghvendra Singh,……………….………...……Appellant 13, Burnt Salt Gola Lane, Howrah-711101, West Bengal [Pan:Bjhps6740J] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-62(1), Kolkata, Bamboo Villa, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700014 Appearances By: Shri Vidyut Sethi, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 13, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 09, 2025 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 56(2)(x)

Singh this issue afresh on merits and pass an appropriate order and with a direction to obtain the DVO’s report after providing 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

Dilip Kumar Pramanik, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 25(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1581/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 250Section 272Section 273B

adjudicate the same on merits after considering the submission of the assessee. 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 and rule ... Rules, 1962 shall also be followed ITA Nos.: 1579, 1580 & 1581/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dilip Kumar Pramanik. and an opportunity of being heard may be provided to the Ld. AO, if required. Accordingly, the grounds taken by the assessee in his appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Dilip Kumar Pramanik, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 25(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1580/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 250Section 272Section 273B

Dilip Kumar Pramanik, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 25(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1579/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 250Section 272Section 273B

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Aadhitya Fincorp Pvt Ltd, Chennai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 659/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.TFor Respondent: Ms. N. V. Lakshmi, Advocate

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 153CSection 40A(3)Section 69A

Rule 46A and passed the impugned order on the basis of fresh evidence placed before him without giving the Assessing Officer (AO) an opportunity of being heard. 9. Per Contra, the Ld.AR submitted that the additions were made by the AO merely on the basis of sworn statements without considering

Pankaj Manohar Pardhi, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 42(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6591/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Prusethassessment Year: 2016-17 Pankaj Manohar Pardhi, Income Tax Officer, B-502, Yash Paradise, Sector 8, Vs. Ward 42 (3)(1), Airoli, Navi Mumbai-400708. Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai - 400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.12.2023, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2016-17. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That There Is Delay Of 168 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal, On Which The Assessee By Filing A Duly Sworn Affidavit Dated 13-09-2025 Has Claimed That The Assessee Has Shifted To Dubai & Thus For The Last Many Years Is Not Residing In India. However, During The Recent Trip In India, The Assessee Became Aware About The Ongoing Appeal Proceedings & Passing Of The Impugned Order & Therefore, The Delay Of 168 Days Has Been Occurred, Which Was Neither Intentional Nor Mala-Fide But Because Of The Aforesaid Reasons.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Ld. SR. D.R

Section 14Section 147Section 250Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 69

case is remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision on merit, suffice it to say while affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 3 Pankaj Manohar Pardhi 7. The Assessee is also directed to file the relevant submissions and documents before the Ld. Commissioner

Elcome Technologies Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6188/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr.-DR

Section 250Section 250(4)Section 37Section 41(1)

erred in drawing adverse inferences and violated the principle of natural justice, i.e. the CIT(A) did not provide an opportunity of being heard (including video conferencing), before passing the order. 2. The Assessing Officer (AO) and the CIT(A) erred in not allowing the write off for bad debts

J V Foundation, Mumbai vs. ITO Exemption Ward 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 182/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR)

Section 11Section 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 44A

disallowing the exemption claimed u/s.11 amounting to Rs.31,69,249/- for non-filing of audit report u/s 12A(1)(b) after providing opportunity of being heard as per the first proviso to sec 143(1) of the Income Tax Act has reached finality by the order of CIT, Exemption, Mumbai

Jv Foundation, Mumbai vs. ITO Exemption Ward 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 181/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR)

Section 11Section 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 44A

Somnath, Faridabad, Haryana vs. Assessing Officer, Faridabad

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

ITA 5073/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhansomnath, Vs. Ito, Ward 2 (4), 399/1, Kumahar Wada, Ballabgarh, Faridabad. Faridabad – 121 004 (Haryana). (Pan : Crhps8429M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2025 Date Of Order : 09.12.2025 O R D E R

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

Section 144

remit back the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer with the directions to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, for which Ld. DR has no objection. Assessee is directed to fully cooperate with the AO during the proceedings. We hold

Madan Lal Bhaskar, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Faridabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4416/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4416/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Madan Lal Bhaskar, Income Tax Officer, Jeevan Nagar, Sikka Enterprises, Vs. Ward 1(3), Faridabad, Haryana. Faridabad. Pan No.Aejpb6367A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 221Section 250

legal representatives. Further, no physical notices have been served upon the assessee. This led to the proceedings being concluded ex parte without any opportunity of being heard. 5 Your honour the order dated 17.05.2024 was also not served on the email hem1408lata@gmail.com. 6. It is recently, when the legal heir ... learned CIT(A), ITD has erred both on facts and in law in passing the order ex-parte without providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard in violation of principle of natural justice. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), ITD has erred

Rajesh Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-47(1), Delhi

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

ITA 3587/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanrajesh Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 47 (1), C/O M/S. Makhan Lal Suresh Kumar & Bros., New Delhi. 3968 – C, First Floor, Naya Bazar, Delhi – 110 006. (Pan : Aaapg7542H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2025 Date Of Order : 09.12.2025 O R D E R

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

relying on the order of Assessing Officer ex-parte. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we direct ld. CIT (A) to give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue on merit as per law. We also direct assessee to make proper submissions and appear before