“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

Ruby Sagir Ahmed Shaikh, Mumbai vs. ITO 41(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 5617/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

accordance with law. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to pass a detailed order on merits in accordance with law by giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee in all the appeals stand partly allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, appeals

Our Vision Entertainment LLP, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 24(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4724/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Ms. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Our Vision Entertainment Income Tax Officer Llp, 15(1)(1), Office No.304, Twin Complex B 103, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Block, Andheri East Mumbai - 400020 Opp Marol Fire Brigade Maharashtra - 400 059 Pan: Aaefo8646C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 250

aside and the case is remanded to the file of Ld. Commissioner for decision on merit, suffice to by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 5 M/s. Our Vision Entertainment LLP 8. The Assessee is also directed to comply with the notices to be issued

DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Mumbai vs. Avinash Construction, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 4245/MUM/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2017-18 Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Avinash Construction, Room No. 803, 8Th Floor, Abil House 2, Old Cgo Annexe Building, Vs. Ganesh Khind Road, M.K.Road, Range Hill Corner, Mumbai-400020. Pune-411007. Pan : Aaefa6358H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 40A(3)Section 69C

carrying on business and expenditure incurred are below the cash limit and AO was directed to verify the same after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. In the set aside proceedings, the AO issued various notices to the assessee followed by a show cause ... business and expenditures incurred are below the cash limit prescribed under the Act. Therefore, AO is directed to verify the same after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee is partly allowed.” 14 23. We therefore find that the findings and directions

Mumbai Cricket Association, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai

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

ITA 1257/MUM/2025[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2024-2025

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 11(1)(c)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 2(15)

learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) erred in facts and in law in passing the impugned order without granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard in violation of the principles of natural justice. 2 Mumbai Cricket Association, Mumbai. 3.The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) erred in facts

M/S U K Steel, Raipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 701/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur01 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.701/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. U.K Steel 0, K.H No.272/5, Sarora, Urla Industrial Area, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Aabfu6560C

For Appellant: None (Petition filed)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

matter came up before the ITAT, it had failed to address the infirmity regarding the fact that the assessee was not afforded proper opportunity of being heard and the matter was dismissed ex- parte by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC which amounted to violation of principles of natural justice ... part of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In light of such decision, the petitioner ought to have been granted an opportunity of being heard which, partakes the characteristic of the fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 11. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay

Late. Prakash Chandra Virdi, L/R Bharat Bhushan Virdi, Mahasamund vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Mahasamund, Mahasamund

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

ITA 674/RPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur01 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.674/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 Late Prakash Chandra Virdi, L/R Bharat Bhushan Virdi, Ward No.3, Near Shiv Mandir, Imli Bhatta, Mahasamund (C.G.)-493 445 Pan: Abjpv6675J

For Appellant: None (Petition filed)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 250(4)Section 282

Narayan Mahapatra, Bhubaneswar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhubaneswar, Odisha

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

ITA 524/CTK/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Dec 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.524/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-2020) Narayan Mahapatra, Vs Dcit, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar B-7, Green Park, Jagamohan Nagar, Jagamara, Bhubaneswar, Odisha-751030 Pan No. :Afgpm 9438 K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satya Prakash Sahoo, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Addl/Jcit(A)-3, Hyderabad, Dated 13.03.2025 For The Assessment Year 2019-2020. 2. At The Outset, We Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Delayed By 121 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported With An Affidavit Stating Therein That The Delay Occurred Due To Bona Fide Reasons Beyond The Control Of The Assessee. It Has Also Been Mentioned In The Affidavit That The Assessee Is Employed With An Mnc Company, Infosys Ltd., As A Senior Delivery Manager. His Nature Of Work Requires Frequent Travel & Deputation To Bengaluru & Overseas Locations As & When Demanded By The 2 Employer. Due To These Professional Exigencies, The Assessee Was Unable To Devote The Adequate Time To Prepare & File The Appeal Within The Prescribed Time. The Contents Of The Affidavit Reads As Under :-

For Appellant: Shri Satya Prakash Sahoo, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for readjudication afresh on merits after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the ld. CIT(A) in the readjudication proceedings, positively. 7. In the result, appeal

Kanheipur Service Cooperative Society Limited, Cuttack vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Cuttack

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

ITA 418/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudhansu Kumar Das, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld.AO for readjudication afresh after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard, subject to a payment of cost of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) payable by the assesee to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

Quality Food Enterprises, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward 2(3) Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 334/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.334/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 ) Quality Food Enterprises, At- Vs Ito, Ward 2(3), Sector14, Surya Nagar, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar. Pan No. : Aaafq 2161 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Biswaraj Raul, Adv राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijaya Singh, Ld Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 1 /12/2025 : 1 /12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri Biswaraj Raul, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijaya Singh, Ld Sr DR

evidences. It is on this basis; the appeal was dismissed. In these circumstances, in the interest of justice, so as to grant adequate opportunity of being heard, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the AO for re-adjudication after allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing

Orissa State Rural Road Agency, Bhubaneswar vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), Hyderabad

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

ITA 317/CTK/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Dec 2025AY 2025-26

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

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Chakraborty, CIT-DR

Section 12A

issue in this appeal is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. A liberty is granted to 3 the assessee to file correct form and submit a copy of the same before

Govabhai Lakhabhai Rabari, Anjar vs. Income Tax Officer(ITO), Gandhidham

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

ITA 878/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Kalepesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234ASection 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 274Section 44A

That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the order passed u/s 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 without giving proper opportunity of being heard. 3. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly dismissed the appeal by applying provision of section 249(4)(b) of the I.T. Act. 4. That

Govabhai Lakhabhai Rabari, Anjar vs. Income Tax Officer(ITO), Gandhidham

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

ITA 877/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Kalepesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234ASection 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 274Section 44A

D.Y. Patil Education Society vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax

ITA 649/PUN/2016[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Dec 2025

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकरअपऩलसं. / Ita No.649/Pun/2016 निर्धारणवषा / Assessment Year: N.A. D.Y.Patil Education Society, V The Commissioner Of 2126, „E‟ Tarabai Park, S Income Tax(Central), Kolhapur – 416003. Pune. Pan: Aaatd8919M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta, Dharmesh Shah & S R Kabra – Cas Revenue By Shri Amol Khairnar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 04/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 01/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax(Central), Pune Under Section 12Aa R.W.S 254 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 24.02.2016. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(Central) In Deciding The Issue Of Registration Of The Education Society Under 5. 12Aa Of The Act Vide His Order Dt. 24-02-2016 Erred In

Section 12A

enjoy any registration under section 12A(a) of the Act on an earlier date. Needless to say, the Commissioner shall give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in this regard, and thereafter adjudicate in accordance with law. 17. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly

Nabarun S K U S Ltd., Nadia vs. I.T.O.Ward-41(1), Krishnanagar

ITA 89/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Section 119Section 139Section 80Section 80ASection 80P

Board. No order rejecting the application under section 119(2)(b) of the Act shall be passed without providing the applicant an opportunity of being heard.” 1.1 Considering the reasons given in the said petition, the delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. This appeal

Girish Sanu, Mangaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Mangaluru

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

ITA 804/BANG/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250

restored back the matter to the file of AO for fresh consideration as per law after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and accordingly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes. 8. Again, aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A)-15, Bengaluru, the assessee has filed ... demonstrate that the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was validly served on the assessee, then AO after giving fresh opportunity of being heard to the assessee, pass an order on merit as per the law. It is ordered accordingly. 12. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee

Olympia Fitness Private Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

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

ITA 6987/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Olympia Fitness Private Limited , Income Tax Officer, Ward-19(1), S-569, 2Nd Floor, Greater Kailash-Ii, Vs New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110048 Pan: Aaaco 8227 G Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 133ASection 254(1)Section 68

circumstances of the case, the NFAC has erred both on facts and in law in passing the order without giving assessee an opportunity of being heard in violation of principle of natural justice. ii) That the non appearance on the last date of hearing before the NFAC

Matrix Clothing Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ACIT-CC-18, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3805/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarmatrix Clothing Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, Village Mohammadpur, Central Circle-18, Khandsa Road, Gurgaon- Delhi 122 001, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabcm8475B Assessee By : Ms. Kavita Jha, Sr. Adv Shri Himanshu Agarwal, Adv Shri Akash Shukla, Adv Revenue By: Shri Chetan P. S. Rao, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 01/12/2025 Matrix Clothing Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, Village Mohammadpur, Central Circle-18, Khandsa Road, Gurgaon- Delhi 122 001, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabcm8475B

For Appellant: Ms. Kavita Jha, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Chetan P. S. Rao, CIT DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

order in writing in Form No. 3CM. In the event of such application of assessee is being rejected by the prescribed authority, an opportunity of being heard would be extended by the prescribed authority to the assessee. As per sub-section (4) of Section 35(2AB) the prescribed authority would

Matrix Clothing Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Central Circle-18, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 760/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Kavita Jha, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Chetan P. S. Rao, CIT DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

The Samastipur District Central Co-Operative Bank Limited, Samastipur vs. Deputy Commissioner, Darbhanga

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

ITA 444/PAT/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Choubey, AdvFor Respondent: Md. A.H. Chowdhary, CIT(DR)

matter back to the file of the learned CIT (A) to examine the issue afresh and pass a speaking order after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 04. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court

The Samastipur District Central Co-Operative Bank Limited, Samastipur vs. Deputy Commissioner, Darbhanga

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

ITA 443/PAT/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Nov 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Choubey, AdvFor Respondent: Md. A.H. Chowdhary, CIT(DR)