“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

Tawfiqur Rahman, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 30(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1424/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1424/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tawfiqur Rahman,…………………….……...……Appellant 39A, Old Ballygunge, 2Nd Lane, Kolkata-700019, West Bengal [Pan:Amhpr8245H] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-30(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Dakshin, 2, Gariahat Road (South), Kolkata-700068 Appearances By: Shri C.M. Roy, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Manas Mondal, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 13, 2025 O R D E R

Section 147Section 250

remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) to dispose of the case on merit 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

Avanti Hydro LLP, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-11(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3125/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3125/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23 Avanti Hydro Llp, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 114, 2Nd Floor, Velachery Main Income Tax, Road, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015. Non-Corporate Circle 11(1), Chennai. [Pan:Absfa8136E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.10.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. The Assessee Raised 5 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is 2

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 68

violating the procedure under law. He submits that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is bad in law without providing adequate opportunity of being heard, in violation of principles of natural justice. The ld. AR submits that the assessee filed additional 3 I.T.A. No.2301/Chny/25 evidence before

Peri India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 13(1) (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 5689/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Vidhi Saloni, CAFor Respondent: ShriVirabhadra Mahajan, (SR.DR.)

Section 139Section 143rSection 195Section 250Section 40

remanded to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh verification and adjudication in accordance with law, after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. The Ld.DR argued and stands in favour of the revenue authority. 5. We have heard rival submission and considered the document ... shall consider all such documents and evidence in accordance with law and decide the matter afresh after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, so as not to prejudice

Sahyadri Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd., Vashi, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Vashi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes for decision on merit

ITA 5679/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Sahyadri Sahakari Income Tax Officer, Patpedhi Ltd., Ward No.28(3)(1), Bldg No.D-1/0-6, Sector 1, Vs. 3Rd Floor, Tower No.06, Vashi, Vashi Railway Station Bldg., Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Vashi, Pan: Aadas1023P Navi Mumbai – 400703 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Sushant Alme, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Sunil Mathews, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.11.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14.07.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Addl/Jcit (A) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2019-20. 2. Considering The Peculiar Fact That The Ld. Commissioner Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee In Limine For Want Of Limitation, The Application For Adjournment Filed By The Assessee, Stands Rejected.

For Appellant: Shri Sushant Alme, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Mathews, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 80P

deposited in the Revenue Department under “other heads” within 30 days from today, suffice to say, the Ld. Commissioner shall afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 8. The Assessee is also directed to file the relevant details and documents before the Ld. Commissioner. It is clarified that

Bhinmal Contractors Property & Land Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5.1.1, Aaykar Bhavan

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

ITA 5573/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: The Learned Cit(A). However, She Could Not Attend The Hearings Since She Was On Maternity Leave And, As A Result, The Matter Was Decided In Her Absence. It Was Therefore Submitted That The Appeal May Be Restored To The File Of The Learned Cit(A) For Adjudication On Merits After Granting An Effective Opportunity.

Section 143(3)

file of the learned CIT(A) with a direction to decide the issues afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 13th November

ACIT-6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Real Estate Limited(Formerly Knowns As Century Textiles and Industries Limited), Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4359/MUM/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri yogesh Thar & Shri VinayakFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-

Section 250Section 32(1)(i)

directed to verify the claim of the assessee on merits and allow the claim in accordance with law after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is ordered accordingly. 19. Ground No.5 raised by the assessee is with regard to non-grant of TDS, Ground No.6 ... mind the directions given in this order with regard to the disallowances made. Needless to say that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 20. The additional ground of the assessee pertains to the consequential effect in the year under consideration towards cost of acquisition of transferable

Uttam Ghewarchand Shrishrimal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 19(3)(5), Matru Mandir

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 3861/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhanuttam Ghewarchand Vs. Ito-19(3)(5) Shrisharimal Matru Mandir, Grant Road, 13/21, 3Rd Floor, Office No. 307, Seth Mumbai-400 007 Virchand, Umersey Building, 3Rd Panjarpole Lane, Near Cp Tank, Mumbai-400 004 Pan: Acwpj4359F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

case and in law the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in passing an ex-parte order u/s 250 without giving a proper opportunity of being heard and dismissing the appeal. 2. A. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (A) has erred ... order to the assessee has incapacitated the assessee to challenge the assessment order. Further, the penalty order has been passed without giving any opportunity of being heard as there is no evidence to show that the show cause notice was served upon the assessee before passing the penalty order. Even

Aditya Birla Real Estate Limited (Formerly Known As Century Textiles and Industries Limited), Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2979/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri yogesh Thar & Shri VinayakFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-

Section 250Section 32(1)(i)

Ramesh Seth, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 45(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 4782/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

matter requires to be remitted back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for consideration of the issue afresh by granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and upon considering the evidence on record or any other evidence which the assessee may choose to file at the time

Om Shreem Ananda Foods Private Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 19(1), Delhi

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

ITA 4780/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

matter to the file of the Learned Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication of the issue involved in the matter upon granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and upon considering the evidence on record or any other evidence which the assessee may choose to file at the time

Smt. Kanta Shroff, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 28(1), New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 3851/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrasmt. Kanta Shroff, Acit, B-25/3, Okhla Industrial Estate Circle-28(1), Phase-Ii, New Delhi. Vs. New Delhi. Pan-Aaops1059H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Nitin Gulati, Adv. Department By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/11/2025 O R D E R Per Sudhir Pareek, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [‘Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Dated 20.05.2025 Passed U/S 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. At The Outset, It Is Seen That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Dismissed By The Ld. Cit(A) For Non-Prosecution. Before Us, The Ld. Ar Submitted That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Issued Several Notices Which Were Not Received & They Were Uploaded The Portal Of The Department, However, The Appellant Was Not Aware Of The Proceedings Nor Such Notices Were Brought To His Knowledge By The Accountant Of The Appellant, Therefore, The Compliance Could Not Be Made Either Before The Learned Ao Or Before Smt. Kanta Shroff Vs. Acit The Cit(A) & Accordingly Prayed That The Matter May Be Sent Back To The File Of The Learned Ao For Fresh Adjudication.

Section 250(6)

matter is remitted back to the file of the Learned AO with direction to decide the issue afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to participate in proceedings before the AO. With these directions, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Surender Singh, Panipat, Haryana vs. ITO, Ward-1, Panipat

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

ITA 3024/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 142(1)Section 144

notice being served. However, in order to prevent the miscarriage of justice this Bench deems it fit and proper to grant further opportunity of being heard to the assessee and hence the appeal is disposed of by setting aside the orders of authorities below and remit the matter back ... file of the Learned AO with specific direction upon him to adjudicate the matter afresh upon granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and upon considering the evidence on record or any other evidence which the assessee may choose to file at the time of hearing

Surender Singh, Panipat, Haryana vs. ITO, Ward-1, Panipat, Ward-

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

ITA 3023/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

S.R. Ashok & Associates Private Limited, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle-22(2), Delhi

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

ITA 2998/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 144Section 144BSection 147

considering the application filed by the assessee praying for time to file the written submissions, we find that the assessee be given further opportunity of being heard. Thus, in order to prevent the miscarriage of justice, the appeal is disposed of by setting aside the matter to the file ... Learned Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication of the issue involved in the matter upon granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and upon considering the evidence on record or any other evidence which the assessee may choose to file at 3 the time of hearing of the matter

Konda Karabi, Jamshedpur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Jamshedpur

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical for statistical purposes

ITA 4/RAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi12 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaykonda Karabi, D.C.I.T., G/15, Nargis, Ashiana Garden Sonari, Circle-1, Vs. Jamshedpur-831011 Jamshedpur. Pan No. Abwpk 3757 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151A

there is an enhancement to the extent of Rs. 1,09,146/-. Before enhancement made, no notice of hearing has been given. No opportunity of being heard is allowed which is violation of principal of natural justice so far the enhancement of impugned capital gain is concerned. In any case ... interest of justice, to send the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh by providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical for statistical purposes

M/S Nandlal Keshardeo, Ranchi vs. ACIT, Central Circle (1), Ranchi

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

ITA 15/RAN/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi12 Nov 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be made unless the assessee has been heard, or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard (2) No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be made (a) by the Income-tax Officer, where the penalty exceeds ten thousand ... order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be made unless the assessee has been heard, or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard". To comply with this requirement the notice u/s 274 should be clear enough to convey the assessee about the charge which

Kiran Agrawal, Raipur vs. ITO, Dhamtari

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of over aforesaid observations

ITA 655/RPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 655/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2022-23)

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Appeal Centre, New Delhi ("the Ld. CIT(A)')) under section 250 of the Act is highly unjustified, bad in law, without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard, against the principles of natural justice and not in accordance with the provisions of law. That the hearing notices ... fresh adjudication within 3 months from receipt of this order. 8. Needless to say, the assessee shall be afforded with reasonable opportunity of being heard in the set aside appellate proceedings. Since the issues are restored back to Ld. CIT(A) at the request of the assessee, it is incumbent

Bhola Prasad Yadav, Patna vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(1), Patna

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

ITA 288/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 5. For that the learned NFAC has erred passing an ex-party order without allowing proper opportunity of being heard, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. For that the whole order passed by the NFAC ... considered that the request of the assessee to set aside the case before the Ld. AO may be allowed so that a proper opportunity of being heard may be provided. Hence, after examining the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order

Late Chandra Kishore Mishra Through Legal Heir Alok Ranjan, Motihari vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Delhi

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

ITA 287/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 250

granted access to the related records of the deceased. It is stated that the appeal is being filed on the ground that the opportunity of being heard was denied to the deceased assessee due to circumstances beyond his control i.e. prolonged illness and eventual death. 7. Since there ... I.T.A. No.: 287/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Late Chandra Kishore Mishra Through Legal Heir Alok Ranjan. assessment of fresh so that a proper opportunity of being heard may be provided. Thus, after examining the facts of the case and the law, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order

Anjani Kumar, Patna vs. ITO, Ward-6(5), Patna

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

ITA 201/PAT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

appeal taken by the assessee on merits by passing a speaking order. 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 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. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed