“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

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

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

ITA 211/GTY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati07 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

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

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

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

ITA 210/GTY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati07 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

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

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 209/GTY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati07 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

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

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 208/GTY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati07 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

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

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

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

ITA 207/GTY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati07 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

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

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

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

ITA 206/GTY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati07 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

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

Jain Babulal Champatlal, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Vijayawada

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are 9

ITA 401/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.400 & 401/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2018-19) Vs. Jain Babulal Champatlal Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(1) Cr Building, 1St Floor Annex 40-1-155, Lgf Mg Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Ripples Mall, M.G. Road Andhra Pradesh Vijayawada-520010 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aefpc1220F]

Section 10Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 57

appeal is disposed off by not admitting it on the ground that the same is not filed in time even without giving the opportunity of being heard. 5. The Assessing Officer, NFAC erred in law in levying a penalty of Rs. 8,56,824/- u/s 270A stating that the assessee

Jain Babulal Champatlal, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Vijayawada

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are 9

ITA 400/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Section 10Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 57

Jain Babulal Champatlal, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Vijayawada

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are 9

ITA 395/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.394 & 395/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year:2017-18) Vs. Jain Babulal Champatlal Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(1) Cr Building, 1St Floor Annex 40-1-155, Lgf Mg Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Ripples Mall, M.G. Road Andhra Pradesh Vijayawada-520010 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aefpc1220F]

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 57

appeal is disposed off by not admitting it on the ground that the same is not filed in time even without giving the opportunity of being heard. 5. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC failed to take into consideration that the levy of penalty of Rs. 1,11,746/- u/s 270A

Jain Babulal Champatlal, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Vijayawada

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are 9

ITA 394/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 57

Sri Koti Linga Hari Hara Mahakshetram Temple, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption WD, Rajahmundry

ITA 365/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.365/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Sri Koti Linga Hari Hara Vs. Income Tax Officer, Mahakshetram Temple, Exemption Ward, Visakhapatnam. Rajahmundry. Pan: Acgfs3064C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri Cr Hemanth Kumar, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 03/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 07/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm :

For Appellant: Sri CR Hemanth Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 10Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 167BSection 194ASection 250(6)Section 65

Income Tax Act, without adjudicating the appeal on merits, thereby violating principles of natural justice and depriving the appellant of a fair opportunity to be heard. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the Order of the Assessing officer ... speaking and a reasoned order. Needless to say, the CIT(A) in the course of the set aside proceedings shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 14. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations. Order

Viral Chandrakantbhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 1299/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalviral Chandrakantbhai Shah, Income Tax Officer, Vs. C/O. Divyang Shah & Co., Ward-3(3)(5), Chartered Accountants, Ahmedabad. 201, Devashish Complex, Nr. Regenta Central Antarim Hotel, Off C G Road, Ahmedabad- 380009. [Pan :Bgups2407 J] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Divyang Shah, Ar Respondent By: Shri Abhijit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07.11.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:- Delay Condoned. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.08.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“The Cit(A) In Short), Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”), Relating To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Sole Substantive Ground Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under: “Whether, On Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming Addition Of Rs.4,19,06,500/- U/S.69A Of The Act. 3. The Assessee Has Also Sought Admission Of The Following Additional Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri Divyang Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication in accordance with law, after affording due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 10. At the same time, in order to discourage such recalcitrant attitude and non-cooperative conduct of the assessee

Purna Chander Ragam, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our above observations

ITA 984/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250

written submissions available on record. Needless to say, the CIT(A) shall in the course of the set aside proceedings afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 10 Purna Chander Ragam vs. ITO 15. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Mukund Das Heda, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward - 8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 619/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.619/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Mukund Das Heda Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 8 (1) Pan:Aanph6899M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate Abhinay Reddy Appeared For C.A S. Srinivas राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Mukund Das Heda (“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 04.03.2025 For The A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Advocate Abhinay Reddy appeared for C.A S. SrinivasFor Respondent: : Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 250(6)

appeal afresh on merits by passing a speaking and reasoned order in accordance with law. The Ld. CIT(A) shall afford due opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who shall be at liberty to file necessary submissions and evidences in support of his claims. At the same time

DCIT., Circle 3(1), Hyderabad vs. Rathnamma Infratech Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1235/HYD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 194H

whereas in the final assessment order, he has made an addition of Rs. 25,24,08,811/-. This deprived the assessee from the opportunity of being heard for incremental income and this is against the CBDT instruction. Non-granting of opportunity of being heard amounts to breach of principles

Senghani and Associates, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 28(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5039/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailsenghani & Associates, 808, 8Th Floor Ecstacy Business Park, Jsd Road Mulund West, Mumbai – 400080 ............... Appellant Pan: Acafs6377C V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward - 28(3)(1), Ito, Vashi Railway Station Building, ……………… Respondent Navi Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 145(1)Section 234BSection 250

during the lifecycle of the project. 9. On the facts & circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has not given enough opportunity of being heard and passed the order without considering the video conferencing opportunity. Thus, the additions made by Learned AO confirmed

Pcl Estates Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 14(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4619/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Bairagra & Ms. Rupa NandaFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (SR. DR.)

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 68

communication purposes. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court (supra), we hold that the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file

Chharia Holding Pvt Ltd, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-28, Delhi

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

ITA 6862/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 153CSection 250

facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Because, ld. CIT (Appeals) inherently wrong in dismissing the appeal ex- party without providing any proper opportunity of being heard, whereby adjournment sought for sought with valid reason, being counsel could not prepare the matter being busy in time barring tax matters ... appeal. 5. Before us, the Ld. Authorized Representative (‘AR’) prayed for remitting the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) because proper opportunity of being heard was not provided to the assessee and thus, there was violation of principle of natural justice. In this regard, he drew our attention

Chharia Holding Pvt Ltd, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-28, Delhi

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

ITA 6861/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 153CSection 250

Chharia Holding Pvt Ltd, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-28, Delhi

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

ITA 6860/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 153CSection 250