← All Phrases

“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

Rai Sahab Bhaiyalal Dubey Educational and Medical Charitable Trust, Jabalpur vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Jabalpur

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

ITA 186/JAB/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur10 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11ASection 12ASection 143(1)

disallowed while processing the return under section 143(1) of the Act. 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

Shri Gandhi Maulana Azad Shramjivi Ashra, Kutch vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward 1, Rajkot

In the result, appeals of the assessee, are allowed

ITA 612/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(23)(iiia)Section 11Section 139Section 142(1)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)

approval of specified authority, with respect to the information which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; (b) provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, 14***] by serving upon him a notice to show cause within such time, as may be specified in the notice ... case has been transferred from one officer to other officer that too, by the officer situated in one locality to another locality, an opportunity of being heard is not afforded to the appellant and also no order u/s 127 of the Act has been passed by the designated authority

Shri Gandhi Maulana Azad Shramjivi Ashra, Kutch vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward 1, Rajkot

In the result, appeals of the assessee, are allowed

ITA 611/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(23)(iiia)Section 11Section 139Section 142(1)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)

approval of specified authority, with respect to the information which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; (b) provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, 14***] by serving upon him a notice to show cause within such time, as may be specified in the notice ... case has been transferred from one officer to other officer that too, by the officer situated in one locality to another locality, an opportunity of being heard is not afforded to the appellant and also no order u/s 127 of the Act has been passed by the designated authority

Binaben Jayeshbhai Gor, Valsad vs. Income Tax Officer- Ward 1, Vapi

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

ITA 1456/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Years: 2012-13

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 272A(1)(b)Section 69A

Tribunal and the matter was set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to allow another opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessment was again completed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 254 of the Act on 21.02.2025 making addition of Rs. 17,59,000/- on account

Smt. Varsha Jain, Bahraich vs. Commissioner, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 287/LKW/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)

file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo assessment order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In view of the foregoing, the order of learned CIT(A) is set aside and issues in dispute are restored back ... Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo assessment order in accordance with law on this specific issue after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open court on 06/03/2026) (ANADEE NATH

Pushpendra Singh, Raebareli vs. DCIT Circle, Faizabad

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

ITA 14/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Pushpendra Singh V. Dcit Circle, 680, Amar Nagar, Raebareli Faizabad/National E- (U.P)-229001. Assessment Centre Delhi Pan:Axbps1905L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 194CSection 40

deserves to be deleted. 6. Because the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order without affording due and effective opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 7. Because the order appealed against is contrary to facts, law and principles of natural justice. 8. The appellant craves leave

Mehal Singh, Jhallian Khurd, Rupnagar vs. ITO Ward-2(2), Ropar

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 806/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: The Cit(A), All The Notices & The Impugned Order Were Communicated At The Old Email Address Of The Earlier Counsel & Not At The Updated Email Address Furnished In The Income-Tax Records. Consequently, The Assessee Remained Unaware Of The Dismissal Of The Appeal & Came To Know About It Only When Recovery Proceedings Were Initiated. Immediately Thereafter He Consulted His Counsel & Steps Were Taken To File The Present Appeal. It Has Further Been Submitted That The Assessee Is A Senior Citizen Suffering From Hypertension & Diabetes & Due To Medical Complications

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh de-novo adjudication after affording adequate opportunity of being heard. 9.3 The restoration is subject to the assessee depositing a cost of Rs.3,000/- in the Poor Patient Relief Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh within

Chimanlal Modi Charitable Trust, Mehsana vs. CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2521/AHD/2025[NOT APPLICABLE]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Mar 2026

Bench: Six Months From The Date Of Commencement Of The Activities, Which Was Further Extended By Cbdt Circular No. 7 Of 2024 Up To 30-06- 2024 But The Assessee Trust Had Not Filed Any Reason For Delay In Filing Such Application. Therefore Ld. Cit(E) Denied The Registration By Observing That The Application Is Filed Belatedly.

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

circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) has not provided reasonable opportunity of being heard as provided under Second Proviso to Section 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) of the Act. 3. On the facts and in circumstances ... circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) has not provided reasonable opportunity of being heard as provided under Second Provisionally to Section 80G (ii)(b)(B) of the Act. 3. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete

Chimanlal Modi Charitable Trust, Mehsana vs. CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2520/AHD/2025[NOT APPLICABLE]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Mar 2026

Bench: Six Months From The Date Of Commencement Of The Activities, Which Was Further Extended By Cbdt Circular No. 7 Of 2024 Up To 30-06- 2024 But The Assessee Trust Had Not Filed Any Reason For Delay In Filing Such Application. Therefore Ld. Cit(E) Denied The Registration By Observing That The Application Is Filed Belatedly.

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

circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) has not provided reasonable opportunity of being heard as provided under Second Proviso to Section 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) of the Act. 3. On the facts and in circumstances ... circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) has not provided reasonable opportunity of being heard as provided under Second Provisionally to Section 80G (ii)(b)(B) of the Act. 3. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete

Shri Ambika Seva Trust, Ahmedabad vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2347/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Parin S Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT DR
Section 115TSection 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

called for by the CIT (Exemptions). The CIT (Exemptions) shall thereafter decide the application afresh in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. This Order is pronounced in the Open

Kaidvana Muvada P Dudh Utpadak Sahkari Mandali Limited, Panchmahal vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Godhra

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

ITA 2325/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR
Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 271ASection 69C

associated with the assessee and the sale of milk to Milk Federation. The Assessing Officer shall examine the issue afresh after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and shall decide the matter in accordance with law. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Mission Table Tennis Development Trust, Kolkata vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exmption), Kolkata

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

ITA 1992/KOL/2025[N.A.]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

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 and seeking the reply from the assessee in respect of the queries raised and in accordance with law. Hence, all the grounds of appeal

Chennai Metro Rail Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3738/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3738/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Chennai Metro Rail Limited, V. Dcit, Metros Anna Salai, Corporate Circle -1(1), Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 035. [Pan:Aadcc 2233 K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T. सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.03.2026 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.03.2026

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 2(45)Section 244ASection 40A(7)Section 43B

Assessing Officer shall examine the contentions and evidences that may be filed by the assessee and pass a reasoned order after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. The assessee is also directed to cooperate in the proceedings and promptly furnish all necessary details and explanations

M/S. Tamil Nadu Trade Promotion Organisation, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 3351/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3351/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Tamil Nadu Trade Promotion The Deputy Commissioner Organization, Vs. Of Income Tax 6 – A/B/C, (Exemptions), Mount Poonamallee Road, Chennai. Nandambakkam, Chennai – 600 089. Pan: Aabct 6725H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.03.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.03.2026

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 25Section 250

above, the order of FAA is set aside and matter remanded back to his file for fresh adjudication on merits after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly

Poonam Lifestyle, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC-19(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 9102/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

erred in confirming the action of the Id. A.O. in passing the impugned order without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) had erred in confirming the action

Badamidevi Sardarmal Purohit, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(1)(1), Parel

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

ITA 7398/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2015-16 Badamidevi Sardarmal Vs. Income Tax Officer 19(1)(1) Purohit Shop No.2, 3Rd Floor, Plot No.10 Dr Ss Rao Marg, Parel, Mumbai- 400012 Mistry Building, Padamji Road, Near Dream Land Cinema, Mumbai-400004 Pan: Akcpp0288R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Vimal Punmiya Department By Shri Alok Singh (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 68

learned CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file with a direction to adjudicate the appeal afresh on merits after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 10. The assessee is also directed to cooperate in the appellate proceedings and promptly furnish all necessary details and submissions

Mitesh Suresh Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO International Taxation Ward 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed with no order as to cost

ITA 5593/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarmitesh Suresh Shah Vs. Ito-International Tax 401, 4Th Floor, Blue Heaven, Ward-4(2)(1), Mumbai Nehru Road, Vakola, Kautilya Bhavan, Pipeline, Santacruz (East), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400055 Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400051 Pan/Gir No. Auxps9395K (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Dinkle Hariya, Adv. Revenue By Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing 11.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 29.03.2022 Passed U/S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The Office Of The Income Tax Officer Ward 4(2)(1), Mumbai For The Assessment Year 2016-17. The Following Grounds Are Reproduced Below: “1. The Order Is Bad In Law, Illegal & Without Jurisdiction

Section 144CSection 147Section 68

facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the A.O. / Ld. DRP erred in not granting a proper, sufficient, and adequate opportunity of being heard to the Appellant while passing/issuing the order/directions. 3.3 Without further prejudice to the above, the A.O. erred in not considering the responses filed

Kabel Metal Power Cables Ltd, Thane vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5299/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhujhunwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 154Section 41(1)Section 69C

would take into account all the submissions and material furnished by the assessee. 7. Needless to say that assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard and furnish all its explanations and documentary evidences to substantiate the claim. We also direct the assessee to be diligent in attending the hearings

Bhagawati M Jain, Dombivali vs. Ward 3(1), Kalyan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2408/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Bhagawati M Jain Income Tax Officer C-22, Bhanu Chs, Ward 3(1), Bhanu Nagar, Dombivali East, 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Vs. Kalyan - 421201 Kalyan-Murbad Rd, Maharashtra Kalyan-Dombivali, Maharashtra, 421301 (Pan: Aatpj1123G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Viraj Mehta, Ca Revenue : Shri Aditya Rai, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.03.2026 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/250/2024-25/1073449956(1), Dated 19.02.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, U/S. 147 R.W.S.144B Of The Income- Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 26.02.2024, For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Viraj Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 153CSection 69B

human probability in respect of the alleged transaction. He thus, concluded that the facts were confronted to the assessee and he was given opportunity of being heard and therefore, it was not necessary to cross examine. Accordingly, addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer was sustained, by dismissing the appeal

Rameshbhai Karshanbhai Myatra, Gandhidham vs. ITO, Ward-1, Gandhidham

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

ITA 846/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250(6)Section 68

hereinafter referred to as the "CIT(A)"] erred on facts as also in law in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without allowing adequate opportunity of being heard. Rameshbhai K. Myatra 3. The Id. CIT(A) erred on facts as also in law not deciding ground of appeal related to validity ... settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party should be granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Keeping in view, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remitted the matter back