← 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

Ravinder Kaur Bhasin, Pritampura vs. ACIT, NFAC

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

ITA 1118/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Ravinder Kaur Bhasin, Vs Acit/Nfac, 30, Dhudial Apartment, New Delhi Pitam Pura, Delhi – 110 034 Pan No. Anbpb1692H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 69

file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the directions to decide the Ravinder Kaur Bhasin vs. ACIT same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and consider all the requisite evidences, including the additional evidences as discussed above. Assessee is also directed to produce

ACIT, Circle-3(1), Gurugram vs. Sunil Kumar, Gurugram

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 68

addition u/s. 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 2|Page ITA No. 1/Del/2025 The appellant during the course of appellate proceedings, was given opportunity of being heard. The appellant submitted the following contention before the undersigned: “The appellant respectfully submits that the learned Assessing Officer (AO) has erred both

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Azad Coach Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 6006/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145Section 145(3)Section 250

That having regard to facts and circumstance of the case Ld. AO has erred in finalizing an ex parte order without giving opportunity of being heard. Ground No. 2: The Ld AO has erred in asking for production of books of accounts whereas case was under online scrutiny Ground ... adjusting the carried forward deprecation. Case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Learned AO has Issued and ex-parte order without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard 4. In response to the notice u/s 250 of the I.T. Act 1961 sent by the NFAC

Mohammad Yousuf Daga, Chanapora vs. Income Tax Officer -Ward -1, Srinagar

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

ITA 219/ASR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Arshad Hussain Mir, C.A
Section 147Section 148Section 250

source of cash deposits in bank account and to fully cooperate in appellate proceedings. 14. The assessee will be allowed reasonable opportunity of being heard. 15. We have not expressed any opinion on merits and legal issues are left open. 16. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee

The Purmandal Utterbahini Tirath Seva Niwas, Jammu vs. CIT Exemptions, Chandigarh

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

ITA 17/ASR/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Nov 2025

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. U. K. Handoo, C. A
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

provisions of law. 3 I.T.A. No. 17/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: N.A. 7. The assessee will be allowed reasonable opportunity of being heard. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules

Rajneesh Mehra, Amritsar vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Amritsar

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

ITA 607/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv. &
Section 144Section 249(3)Section 250

file all documentary evidences and submission and to fully co-operate in fresh assessment proceedings. 12. The assessee to be allowed reasonable opportunity of being heard and notice to be issued as per provisions of section 282 of the Act, 61. 13. We have not expressed any opinion on merits

Shri Basaveswar Co-Op Credit Society Niyamit, Palabhavi Raibag, Belgaum vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO Ward, Belagavi

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

ITA 218/PAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji10 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos. 218/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2017-18) Shri Basaveswar Co_Op Credit Vs Ito-Ward-4, Society Niyamit, Feroj Khimjibhai Cpx, . Near Gram Panchayat , Civil Hospital Road Main Road, Belagavi-590001. Palabhavi, Raibag, Karnataka. Belgaum-591235.Karnataka. Pan .No.Aagas9132A (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Ms.Shree Raksha.Ar Revenue By Smt.Rijula Uniyal.Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 04.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 10.11.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of The Addl/Jcit(A)-3 Chennai Passed U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assesse Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Order Of The Nfac/ Cit(A) Sustaining Addition U/Sec68 Of The Act & The Denial Of Claim Of Deduction Under Section 80P Of The Act Applying The Provisions Of Section 80Ac Of The Act. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee Is A Credit Cooperative Society Engaged In Providing The Credit Facilities To Members. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Based On The Information & Data Analytics/ Cash Transactions Data

Section 80ASection 80P

file of the Assessing Officer for verification and examination and to adjudicate on merits and the assessing officer shall provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee should also cooperate in submitting the information. And these grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical

Chhedi Lal Gupta, Pratapgarh vs. The Income Tax Officer, Pratapgarh

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

ITA 144/ALLD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad10 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 253(3)Section 69A

back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced on 10/11/2025 in accordance

Ganga Prasad Kesarwani, Pratapgarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Pratapgarh.

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

ITA 142/ALLD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad10 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

file of the learned CIT(A) with the direction to pass de novo order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced on 10/11/2025 in accordance with Rule

Kirtikumar Nagindas Shah, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(6), Surat

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

ITA 281/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.281/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 (Hybrid Hearing) Kirtikumar Nagindas Shah Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, बनाम/ A-1103, Regent Residency, Circle-1(3), Surat (Current Jurisdiction Vs. Nr. Saurabh Society, Pal, Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(6), Surat-394 510 Surat, Income Tax Office, Anavil Business Center, Adajan-Hazira Road, Surat-395 007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Anjps 9031 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 249(3)Section 250

matter to the file of AO for de novo order after granting adequate and fair ITA No.281/Srt/2025 A.Y 12-13 Kirtikumar N Shah opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Shri Hargovind Ishwarbhai Patel, Surat vs. DCIT Central Circle-2, Surat

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

ITA 21/SRT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Buayananda Pruseth

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(3)Section 68

restore the matter to his file with the direction to adjudicate the appeal afresh after affording reasonable and effective opportunities of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to appear before the CIT(A) and cooperate in the proceedings without seeking unnecessary adjournments. We make it clear

Prime Co Operative Bank Ltd, Surat vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Surat

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

ITA 19/SRT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.19/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Hybrid Hearing) Prime Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Vs. Acit, Khatodra, Ring Road, Surat – Circle-1(1)(1), 395002 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcp7117M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Hiren Vepari, Ca Respondent By Shri Aashish Pophare, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/11/2025

Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

decide the appeal afresh by adjudicating of the grounds including the jurisdictional and legal grounds raised by the appellant after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee. Accordingly, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Sajithkumar Subi, Ankleshwar vs. Income-Tax Officer Ward-2(4), Bharuch

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

ITA 670/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.670/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 (Hybrid Hearing) Sajithkumar Subi, Ito Ward- 2(4), Bharuch बनाम/ 60, Raghuveer Society, Opp. Harikunj Building, Above Bank Of Vs. Surwadi, Bor Bhatha Road, Baroda, Station Road, Bharuch Ankleshwar, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Axcpk0947P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Ms. Kinjal Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 12/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 10/11/2025

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

Tribunal shall not rest its decision on any other ground unless the party who may be affected thereby has had a sufficient opportunity of being heard on that ground.” 4.1 The Learned Sr. DR for the revenue has not raised any objection to admission of the additional ground raised ... aside and the matter is restored to the file of AO for de novo assessment after providing reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The appellant is at liberty to raise the additional ground before the AO, who shall decide it in accordance with law. The grounds

Anju Meel, Jaipur vs. I.T.O. Ward 3(4), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 741/JPR/2025[A.Y. 2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. G. M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Chaudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 292B

provisions of section 142A(7), the AO on receipt of the valuation report may take into account the same after giving opportunity of being heard to the appellant. As per the prevailing Explanation 1(iv) under the first proviso to section 153 of the Act, while computing the limitation period

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. Sh. Vinod Kumar Jain, Kota

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

ITA 717/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 68Section 69B

During the course of hearing, the ld.DR supported the order of the AO and submitted that the Department was not provided adequate opportunity of being heard and further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has decided the above grounds of appeal in fvour of the assessee only based ... ld.DR submitted that the issue be restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for afresh consideration but by providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Department. To support the arguments, the ld. DR relied upon following case laws. Judgments Applying Section 115BBE on Excess Stock – In Favour

Apeksha Trust, Jaipur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption ), Jaipur

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

ITA 267/JPR/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA No.267/JP/2025 Under Section 12AB of the Act निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2024-25 Apeksha Trust D-341, Murilipura Scheme, Jaipur – 302 039 स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAITA2951 N अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम Vs. The CIT (Exemption) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओरसे/Assesseeby :Shri C.P. Chawla, ITP राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT –DR,(Thru: V.C.) सुनवाई

For Appellant: Shri C.P. Chawla, ITPFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT –DR,(Thru: V.C.)
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

between the parties has to be decided on merits so that nobody’s rights could be scuttled down without providing the proper opportunity of being heard and thereby the principles of natural justice to be followed. Looking to that aspect of the matter, we direct the assessee trust to provide

Amit Kumar, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 4(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 1087/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. C. L. Yadav, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148ASection 2

remains unexplained Thus, income from above transactions was considered as not offered for tax and due tax has not been paid. Thus, an opportunity of being heard as per provision of section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was provided to the assessee wherein the assessee was given ... remains unexplained. Thus, income from above transactions was considered as not offered for tax and due tax has not been paid. Thus, an opportunity of being heard as per provision of section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was provided to the assessee wherein the assessee was given

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Sh. Ashwani Gupta, Jaipur

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1061/JPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Revenue Has Assailed The Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 In

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271D

imposition of penalty under sub-section (2) shall be passed- a) unless the assessee has been heard, or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard; b) after the expiry of six months from the end of the quarter in which the order passed under section 246 or section

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Ashwani Gupta, Jaipur

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1060/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Revenue Has Assailed The Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 In

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271D

imposition of penalty under sub-section (2) shall be passed- a) unless the assessee has been heard, or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard; b) after the expiry of six months from the end of the quarter in which the order passed under section 246 or section

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Sh. Ashwani Gupta, Jaipur

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1059/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Revenue Has Assailed The Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 In

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271D

imposition of penalty under sub-section (2) shall be passed- a) unless the assessee has been heard, or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard; b) after the expiry of six months from the end of the quarter in which the order passed under section 246 or section