← 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

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 1058/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

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 1057/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

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- unless the assessee has been heard, or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard; after the expiry of six months from the end of the quarter in which the order passed under section 246 or section 246A

Cooperative Cane Development Union Ltd Balrampur, Balrampur vs. AO NFAC Delhi, NFAC New Delhi

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

ITA 629/LKW/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(3)Section 144B

direction to pass de novo order on disputed issues regarding additions made in the assessment order; in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. (Order was pronounced

Manohar Waman Pandagale, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(3), Pune

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

ITA 1464/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Richa Gulati (Virtually)
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151ASection 45

file with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merit(s) as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to provide his latest email id to the Department and remain vigilant in accessing

Sunil Shrirang Pawar, Satara vs. ITO Ward 2 Satara, Satara

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1127/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1124 To 1127/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Suhas S. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Shahakar
Section 147Section 250Section 69A

dated 08.01.2025. As such, order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), NAFC on 13.02.2025 dismissing the appeal without allowing further opportunity of being heard to the appellant is erroneous and bad in law. As such, the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), NFAC ... Authorities may be set aside and matter be restored back to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with proper & adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with principle of natural justice. 3) The Appellant craves the permission to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete

Sunil Shrirang Pawar, Satara vs. ITO Ward 2 Satara, Satara

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1126/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1124 To 1127/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Suhas S. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Shahakar
Section 147Section 250Section 69A

dated 08.01.2025. As such, order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), NAFC on 13.02.2025 dismissing the appeal without allowing further opportunity of being heard to the appellant is erroneous and bad in law. As such, the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), NFAC ... Authorities may be set aside and matter be restored back to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with proper & adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with principle of natural justice. 3) The Appellant craves the permission to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete

Sunil Shrirang Pawar, Satara vs. ITO Ward 2 Satara, Satara

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1125/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1124 To 1127/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Suhas S. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Shahakar
Section 147Section 250Section 69A

dated 08.01.2025. As such, order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), NAFC on 13.02.2025 dismissing the appeal without allowing further opportunity of being heard to the appellant is erroneous and bad in law. As such, the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), NFAC ... Authorities may be set aside and matter be restored back to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with proper & adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with principle of natural justice. 3) The Appellant craves the permission to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete

Sunil Shrirang Pawar, Satara vs. ITO Ward 2 Satara, Satara

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1124/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1124 To 1127/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Suhas S. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Shahakar
Section 147Section 250Section 69A

dated 08.01.2025. As such, order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), NAFC on 13.02.2025 dismissing the appeal without allowing further opportunity of being heard to the appellant is erroneous and bad in law. As such, the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), NFAC ... Authorities may be set aside and matter be restored back to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with proper & adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with principle of natural justice. 3) The Appellant craves the permission to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete

Madura Coats Employees and Public Service Co-Op Housing Society Ltd., Tirunelveli vs. ITO, Ward-4, Tirunelveli

ITA 2345/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2345/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 Maduracoats Employees & The Income Tax Officer, Public Service Co-Op Ward 4, Housing Society Ltd., Vs. Tirunelveli Ambasamudram, Agasthiyarpatti S.O, Agasthiyarpatti, Tirunelveli – 627428. Pan: Aaiam 5076B (""यथ"/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Erode), Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30.10.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Erode), AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144ASection 147Section 148Section 250Section 80P

Assessing Officer (AO) and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment (i.e; denovo) after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Assessing Officer shall also furnish copies of the relevant correspondence and consider the assessee’s submissions in accordance with

Shore Dwellings Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1263/BANG/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 201Section 40

support of their claim that the disallowance made by the CPC is not in order. We also direct the AO to grant an opportunity of being heard to the assessee before completing the assessment proceedings. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Gyanchand Roopchand Madhani, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal and the appeal filed by the

ITA 4894/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C. V. Bhadang & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Pratik Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, (CIT DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250

Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in passing the order u/s 250 of the Act, confirming the action of the Learned AO without affording proper opportunity of being heard which is contrary to the principles of natural justice and settled judicial precedents. 6. The learned Assessing Officer erred in relying upon ... delay is stated to be bonafide and not intentional. In case of rejection, the assessee would suffer irreparable loss and injury and valuable opportunity of being heard on merits. It is a requested to condone the delay. 4. On careful consideration of the submissions of the assessee

Shri Prakash Malji Bhanushali, Mumbai vs. Int Tax, Ward-1(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2744/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Prakash Malji Bhanushali International Tax, B 1502 Tower 1 Ward-1(2)(1), Lbs Marg, Vikas Paradise, Mumbai Mulund West, Vs. Mumbai – 400080 (Pan: Anjpb5957H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Siddharth Srivastava, Ca Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.11.2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Srivastava, CAFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 271Section 28Section 41(1)Section 68

furnished by the assessee and consider the same for the claim made by the assessee. Needless to say, assessee may be given reasonable opportunity of being heard and to make any further submission, if he desires so. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

DCIT, Delhi vs. Ajayvision Education Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 4175/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 201Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

made under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. If you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity of being heard in person or through athorised representative, you may show cause in writing on or before the said date which will be considered before ... should not be made under section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. If you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity of being heard in person or through authorised representative, you may show cause in writing on or before the said date which will be considered before

DCIT, Delhi vs. Ajayvision Education Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 4174/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 201Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

made under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. If you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity of being heard in person or through athorised representative, you may show cause in writing on or before the said date which will be considered before ... should not be made under section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. If you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity of being heard in person or through authorised representative, you may show cause in writing on or before the said date which will be considered before

DCIT, Delhi vs. Ajayvision Education Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 4173/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 201Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

made under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. If you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity of being heard in person or through athorised representative, you may show cause in writing on or before the said date which will be considered before ... should not be made under section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. If you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity of being heard in person or through authorised representative, you may show cause in writing on or before the said date which will be considered before

DCIT, Delhi vs. Ajayvision Education Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 4172/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 201Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

made under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. If you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity of being heard in person or through athorised representative, you may show cause in writing on or before the said date which will be considered before ... should not be made under section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. If you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity of being heard in person or through authorised representative, you may show cause in writing on or before the said date which will be considered before

Sanjay Singh Rana, Delhi vs. PCIT, Delhi-20, Delhi

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

ITA 3463/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 263

Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(2), Delhi, I.P.Estate vs. Bureau Veritas Consumer Products Services (India) Private Limited, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3294/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

directed to verify the same in light of Agreements/MOUs. Needless to mention that the Ld. AO shall give reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The impugned order is thus, on this issue is set aside and the issue of rebate & discount is remitted

Ecoenergy Insights Ltd ( Formerly Known As Chubb Alba Control Systems P.Ltd), New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 2321/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaecoenergy Insights Ltd., Vs. Dcit, (Formerly Known As Chubb Alba Control Circle 4 (2), Systems P. Ltd.), New Delhi. Ground Floor, 18, Netaji Subhash Marg, Daryaganj, New Delhi – 110 002. (Pan :Aaaca0031C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Shri Parth, Advocate Shri Pratik Rath, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date Of Order : 10.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessees Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 25.07.2022Passed By The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Under Section 147 Read With Section 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Ay 2018-19 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 92C

file of Assessing Officer/TPO to determine the proper ALP by adopting the MAM and redo the ALP adjustment after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same, time, we also direct the assessee to submit the relevant information relevant to determine the cost incurred ... afresh by selecting proper comparables as per the FAR analysis. It is needless to say that assessee may be given proper opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, these grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 36. With regard to Ground Nos.16 to 21, the relevant facts are, during

Anjan Kumar Paul, Cachar vs. ACIT Central Circle-1, Guwahati

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

ITA 212/GTY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati07 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek BansalFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray, JCIT
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 250

remand the case to ld. AO for reconsideration. We direct the ld. AO to reframe the assessment after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. At the same time, we direct the assessee to substantiate his claims before the ld. AO. Thus, we allow the appeal of the assessee