← 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

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 6859/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

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 6858/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

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 6857/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

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 6856/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

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

Om Narain Sharma, New Delhi vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-45(1), Delhi

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

ITA 2435/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaom Narain Sharma, Vs. Ito, Ward 45 (1), A – 21,Exin, D.K. Road, Delhi. Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, Delhi – 110 059. (Pan : Dflps0932B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Arpit Gaur, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 Date Of Order : 07.11.2025 Order 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 28.02.2025 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar For The Assessee Submitted That There Was A Delay Of 153 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Ld. Cit (A) & The Ld. Cit (A) Dismissed The Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeal On The Ground That Assessee Has Failed To Explain The Delay Of 153 Days With Material Evidence On Day-To-Day Basis.He Submitted That Ld. Cit (A) Was Unjustified In Refusing To Condone The Delay Ignoring

For Appellant: Shri Arpit Gaur, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 147

passed the assessment order ex-parte. Accordingly, we restore the matter to the file of the AO to decide afresh, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also direct assessee to make proper submissions and appear before the AO on the date of hearing and cooperate

Fexprime Finance Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1361/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 41(1)

ADDL/JCIT is bad in law, and it is based on incorrect interpretation of the law and without allowing proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard. The above grounds of appeal are all independent and without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to supplement, to cancel, to amend

Harmeet Singh, Shimla vs. Income Tax Officer Ward Shimla, Shimla

Appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 413/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SH. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Abhinav Bizwaria, Advocate and Shri Parveen Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT,Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 69A

parte order passed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Ld. Assessing Officer, that too without giving an opportunity of being heard. The same is 'against the principles of natural justice. 3. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Authorities below

Jayeshbhai Gordhanbhai Patel, Anand vs. The ITO, Ward-1(3)(1), Petlad

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

ITA 71/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.71/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Jayeshbhai Gordhanbhai Patel The Ito बनाम/ Kishan Cowk Ward-1(3)(1) V/S. Piplav, Anand – 388 460 Petlad – 388 450 Gujarat "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Bixpp 2069 Q (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Darshan Belani, Ar Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 29/09/2022 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-2012. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Hon’Ble Cit(A) Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case By Upholding The Addition Amounting To Rs.23.30,500/- Made As Unexplained Investments In Case Of The Appellant For Ay 2011-12. 2. The Appellant Reserves The Right To Add/Alter Or Amend Any Of The Ground Of Appeal.” Jayeshbhai Gordhanbhai Patel Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Darshan Belani, ARFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.DR
Section 139Section 250Section 253(5)

restore the matter to his file for de novo adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to afford adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the appeal afresh on merits, in accordance with law. We make it clear that the Jayeshbhai Gordhanbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst. Year

Axiomatic Itech Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(4), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 191/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S N Divatia, ARFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)

donation funds. The Counsel also submitted that the CIT(Appeals) had passed the appellate order ex parte, without giving the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard. The record of notices in the impugned order itself shows that most of the notices were issued during the COVID-19 pandemic period ... remit the matter back to his file with a direction to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate in the appellate proceedings and furnish all necessary details and evidences in support

Mohanbhai Becharbhai Chauhan, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2)(3), Ahmedabad

ITA 1570/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Vidhi V. Pandya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 234ASection 234BSection 271FSection 272ASection 272A(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

appropriate to set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for denovo assessment. The Assessing Officer shall afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and permit him to produce relevant evidence in support of his claim that the cash deposits and fixed deposit originated from

Mallarpur Naisuva, Birbhum vs. CIT (Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 764/KOL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

deciding the application afresh following the directions of the Tribunal in the order in ITA No. 165/KOL/2024 dated 23.04.2024 after granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and considering the reply which may be filed and thereafter, he shall pass a speaking order and grant approval under section

Mondal Education Trust, Hooghly vs. DCIT, Circle 23(1), Hooghly

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

ITA 367/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 246ASection 250

fair play it was considered that the request of the assessee to set aside the case may be allowed so that a proper opportunity of being heard may be provided. After examining the facts of the case and the law, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order ... assessee did not make any proper submission. 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 46A of the I.T. Rules

Soumyadip Digital Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O.(TDS), Ward - 3(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 2040/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. DR

issues in both appeals are restored to the file of the ld. AO for readjudication the issues afresh after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. 5. In the result, both appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 06/11/2025. (RAKESH MISHRA

Soumyadip Digital Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O.(TDS), Ward - 3(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 2039/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. DR

issues in both appeals are restored to the file of the ld. AO for readjudication the issues afresh after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. 5. In the result, both appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 06/11/2025. (RAKESH MISHRA

Cic Society, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 32, Kolkata

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

ITA 1287/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

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

thereby violating the principles I.T.A. No.: 1287/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 CIC Society. of natural justice and denying the assessee a fair opportunity of being heard. 3. That the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.5,40,764/- on account of mismatch with Form 26AS without ... aside the case before I.T.A. No.: 1287/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 CIC Society. the Ld. AO may be allowed so that a proper opportunity of being heard may be provided as proper submission could not be made earlier for want of time and our attention was drawn to page

Bani Broto Banerjee, Kolkata vs. ACIT Circle 58(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1095/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 57

assessee; therefore, the appeal was heard with the assistance of the Ld. DR. 6. The Ld. DR stated that the assessee was provided opportunities of being heard, but as is mentioned in para 6.5 of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed similar submissions which are reproduced ... 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

Arulmigu Soundaraja Perumal Thirukovil, Thirukovil vs. ITO Ward 1, Dindigul

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

ITA 2122/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2122/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 Arulmigu Soundaraja Perumal Income Tax Officer, Thirukovil, Ward-1, No.01, Thoppur Dindigul, Dindigul. Tadicombu S.O, Tamil Nadu-624 709. [Pan: Aaeta8118R] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.T.S.Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Saujanya Ranjan, Irs सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.11.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.T.S.Lakshmi Venkataraman, FCAFor Respondent: Mr.Saujanya Ranjan, IRS

assessee submitted that the Ld.First Appellate Authority has also confirmed the addition by passing an ex- parte order without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard. It was accordingly pleaded that in the interest of justice the matter may be restored back to the file of Ld.AO for readjudication ... placed upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TIN box 249 ITR 216. The Ld. AO shall give opportunities of being heard to the assesse and it shall be bounden upon the assesse to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. Page

ACIT 41 2 1, Mumbai vs. Dinesh Jyotichand Jain, Mumbai

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

ITA 5460/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 03/11/2025
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 292B

needless to add that the assessee shall be afforded due and needless to add that the assessee shall be afforded due and adequate opportunity of being heard before any final decision is adequate opportunity of being heard before any final decision is adequate opportunity of being heard before any final

Sanjeev Kumar Rana, Dlehi vs. ITO Ward, Uttarpradesh

In the result, both the Assessee’s appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5592/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Uma Upadhaya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

back the issues in dispute 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 and consider all the requisite documents/evidences. Assessee is also directed to furnish all the requisite documents/ evidences

Sanjeev Kumar Rana, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 2 -(2) (4), Ghazibad

In the result, both the Assessee’s appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5591/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Uma Upadhaya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

back the issues in dispute 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 and consider all the requisite documents/evidences. Assessee is also directed to furnish all the requisite documents/ evidences