“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

Robust Resorts & Hospitality LLP, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

ITA 4312/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year : 2016-17 Robust Resorts & Hospitality Llp, Vs. Dcit, J-290, Second Floor, Saket, Central Circle-14, New Delhi – 110 017. New Delhi. Pan: Aarfr7213D

For Appellant: Shri Yudhisthir Mehtani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(x)Section 69C

Therefore, adherence to show cause is not merely a procedural formality but a mandatory requirement. The assessee is entitled to fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard for which law has provided specific mechanism in the form of show cause notice. Hence, the assessment order is invalid and deserves

Neeraj Sinha, HUF, Patna vs. ITO, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 114/PAT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna11 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter to the Ld. AO to frame the assessment afresh, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and thereafter pass an order in accordance with law. The assessee shall not seek unnecessary adjournment and shall be at liberty

Abdul Rashid Khan, Dholpur vs. ITO-1, Bharatpur

ITA 1080/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gorav Agarwal, CA (through VH)For Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 144Section 234ASection 271(1)

treatment due to Neuro disease, we deem it a fit case to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer to provide him another opportunity of being heard. 7 Abdul Rashi Khan, Dholpur. As regards failure on the part of, and non compliance by the assessee with the notices issued

Aditya Saini, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 6(2), Jpr, Jaipur

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

ITA 1571/JPR/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Nov 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1571/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Aditya Saini बनाम Income Tax Officer, 1211 B3 Barkat Nagar, Gandhi Vs. Ward 6(2), Jaipur Nagar, Jaipur अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: IFVPS8965E निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Sunil Morani, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख /

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Morani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 144

justice. 6 Aditya Saini vs. ITO 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order ex party without providing a fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is respectfully submitted that the last notice issued by the CIT(A) did not mention that it was the final opportunity ... restore the matter back to the file of the Id. CIT (A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH 'E', NEW DELHI IN ITANo. 1757/Del/2019 Nikunj Daga Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle

Mohammad Husain, Sant Kabir Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Basti, New, Basti

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

ITA 640/LKW/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144Section 147Section 148

learned CIT(A) with the direction to pass fresh order in accordance with law, deciding all grounds of appeal, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. (D) In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open court

Rakesh Kumar Yati, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-1(3), Lucknow

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

ITA 310/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 253(3)

Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo speaking order on merits of the case in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. (D) In the result, the appeal of the assessee is party allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open

Shri Rushabhdev Swetambar Murtipujak Jain Sangh, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2 (Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 136/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar&Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Jaimin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CITDR

Section 12ASection 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

valid PAN. (iii) The Assessing Officer shall examine the reconciliation and pass a speaking and reasoned order after affording the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. 23. With regard to Ground Nos. 7 and 8 relating to initiation of penalty and charging of interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C

Bilal Kasam Memon, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 6(3), Pune

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

ITA 1281/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1281/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bilal Kasam Memon, Ito, Ward-6(3), Pune Memon Manzil 451/3, Salisbury Park, Gultekdi, Pune-411037 Vs. Maharashtra Pan-Adhpm5491R अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sachin Kumar (virtually)For Respondent: Shri Uodol Raj Singh, DR

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69B

That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A). NFAC has passed the order u/s 250 without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard and thus violating the principle of "audi alteram partem." 3. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case ... facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has passed the ex parte appellate order without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard. 9.That, the appellant may kindly be allowed to add, alter or modify any other points to the grounds of appeal at any time

Prameela Porika, Suryapet vs. ACIT., Circle-7(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 593/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad11 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.593/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Prameela Porika Vs. Acit Suryapet Circle 7(1) Pan:Almpp8561C Suryapet (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate S. Sandhya राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Rakesh Chintagumpula, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 11/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Smt. Prameela Porika (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 27.10.2023 For The A.Y 2017-18. Page 1 Of 7

For Appellant: Advocate S. SandhyaFor Respondent: : Shri Rakesh Chintagumpula

Section 270A

issue afresh. Accordingly, the issue is restored to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication. The Ld. AO shall provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, examine all documents and evidence that the assessee intends to file in support of its claims and pass a speaking

Dipika Singh, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 50(2), Now Ward 50(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 194/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ito, Ward 50(2) Dipika Singh Now Word 50(1), Bhatendra East Raypara Uttarpan, Manicktala Civic Rajarhat, Barasat, Vs. Centre, Kolkata-700067, Kolkata-700135, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Bllps4355P Assessee By : S/ Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Anirban Gupta, Ars Revenue By : Ms. Ruchika Sharma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.11.2025

For Appellant: S/ Shri Soumitra Choudhury &For Respondent: Ms. Ruchika Sharma, DR

Section 145(3)Section 69A

dimension cannot be given to the disputed issue by converting the addition from section 68 to section 69, that too, without providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. More so, when applicability of section 69 was never within the purview of the Tribunal and not even the case

Vikash Mimani, Sikkim vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 3(2), Gangtok

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

ITA 1409/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: the Tribunal. An affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay has been filed. We, after considering the contents of the affidavit and submissions of both sides, we are satisfied that the delay was due to reasonable cause and the same is condoned.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)

impugned order of the CIT(A) and remit the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to fully cooperate and comply with all notices issued by the Assessing Officer without seeking unnecessary

Vikash Mimani, Sikkim vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), Gangtok

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

ITA 1408/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2016-2017

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)

Iqbal Maenuddin Shaikh, Mumbbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward22(1)(6), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA

ITA 5584/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: ShriIqbal Maennuddin ShaikhFor Respondent: Shri Veerabhadra S Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

looked in hurry to pass the assessment order by making addition of Rs.59,86,710/- as unexplained income u/s. 69A without allowing proper opportunity of being heard. Section 69A says that if the assessee is found to be in possession of any money, bullion etc. but fails to explain

Income Tax Officer Ward-3(2), Kalyan, Kalyan West vs. Naresh Himmatlal Shah, Dombivali East

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue Department is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5272/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Joshi, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)

remand the case to the file of Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say with reasons and while affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. Thus, it is ordered accordingly. 3 Mr. Naresh Himmatlal Shah 4. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue Department

Linklaters LLP, London vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle (3)(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1222/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2022-23 Linklaters Llp Assistant Commissioner Of C/O. Deloitte Haskins & Sells Income Tax (International Llp, Tower 3, 27-32 Floor, One Taxation) - 3(1)(2), International Centre, Mumbai Elphinstone Mill Compound, Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone (West), Mumbai – 400 013. (Pan: Aabcl5182G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Niraj Sheth, Advocate Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 144C(5)Section 9Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

expenditure is not income and therefore the same cannot be brought to tax 30. The learned AO erred in not providing an opportunity of being heard before taxing the disbursements 5 Linklaters LLP AY 2022-23 31. Without prejudice to the above, the learned AO ought to have allowed deduction

Gmp Technical Solutions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4114/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Afrin Shaikh & Rahul CharkhaFor Respondent: Shri. SwapnilChoudhary Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 69CSection 80I

pass a speaking order after verifying the documents and allow the claim of the assessee in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is ordered accordingly. 4. The assessee made an alternate plea that the addition could be sustained to the extent

Madan Lal Garg, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Gurgaon

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

ITA 2808/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmamadan Lal Garg, Vs. Ito, Ward 2 (4), Shop No.32, Opp. Maruti Gate No.2, Gurgaon. Gurgaon Old Delhi Road, Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Aidpg4403E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Amit Rai, Ca Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.11.2025 Date Of Order : 11.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 29.02.2025 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. At The Outset, It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar For The Assessee That 2. Assessing Officer Has Passed The Assessment Order Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) Without Giving

For Appellant: Shri Amit Rai, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 147

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 through his counsel to fully cooperate with the AO during

Mohan Sambaji Jacthap, Gurgaon vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 3, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2005-06 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2096/DEL/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 271(1)(c)

leave to add, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing. 7. No proper opportunity of being heard is given to assessee & the Ld. CIT has erred in law and on the facts & penalty order passed is against the principle of natural

Mohan Sambaji Jacthap, Gurgaon vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 3, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2005-06 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2095/DEL/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 271(1)(c)

Mohan Sambaji Jacthap, Gurgaon vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 3, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2005-06 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2094/DEL/2025[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 271(1)(c)