“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..C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore

ITA 684/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel

Section 2Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41(1)

remanded to the file of the Ld. AO for the limited purpose of verification, and the assessee shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the set-aside proceedings.” 20. The facts for the year under consideration being identical, we remand the issue for the year under consideration ... purpose of business" keeping in the legal position as explained above. Needless to say that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is ordered accordingly. Disallowance of capital expenditure incurred towards right issue – Ground No.8 of assessee's appeal & Ground No.4 of revenue's appeal

State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

ITA 661/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel

Section 2Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41(1)

Anoop Dewani, New Delhi vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/ACIT/ITO, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 4752/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumaranoop Dewani, Vs. Addl./Joint/Depty/Acit, 92, Anupam Apartments, Nfac, Delhi. M.B. Road, Saket, New Delhi – 110 068. (Pan : Adupd8083H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.11.2025 Date Of Order : 03.11.2025 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 12.03.2025 For The Ay 2018-19. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. We Proceeded To Adjudicate The Issue With The Assistance Of Ld. Dr Of The Revenue. 3. At The Time Of Hearing, It Is Observed From The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) That The Appeal Was Filed Before The Ld. Cit (A) On 14.08.2021 With A Delay Of 90 Days & That Too Without Any Plausible Explanation. Accordingly, Ld. Cit (A)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Accordingly, we restore the matter to the file of ld. CIT (A) to decide afresh as per law, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also direct assessee to make proper submissions and appear before the ld.CIT (A) on the date of hearing and cooperate with

Ilayash, Khurja vs. ITO, Ward 3(2), Bulandshahr

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

ITA 2772/DEL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and as per law. Further, the assessee will be at liberty to furnish any explanation / evidence in support of his claim before

Mrs. Surekha Sharma, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward-4(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 2486/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: PendingITAT Delhi03 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 69A

directed to consider the issue of limitation liberally and decide the Appeal in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 6. In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 03rd November

Anju Sachdeva, Delhi vs. A.C Central Circle 18, Central Circle Income Tax

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

ITA 2478/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)

With these directions, we restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to be decided after affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 19. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 2993/DEL/2017 is allowed for statistical purposes.” 3. The dispute ... aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication, after affording due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Further, the assessee will be at liberty to furnish any explanation / evidence in support of her claim before

Jambagi Laxman Siddappa (HUF), Raibag vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(4), Belagaum

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

ITA 215/PAN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos.215/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17) Jamgagi Laxmansiddappa Huf Vs Ito-Ward-1(4), Ashirwad Nursing & Maternity Feroj Khimjibhai Cpx, . Home, Civil Hospital Road Harugeri, Raibag Dist, Belagavi-590001. Belagavi-591222, Karnataka. Karnataka. Pan .No. Aafhj4272E (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

examination and to adjudicate on merits and the assessing officer shall provide 4 ITA. No. 215/PAN 2025. Jambagi Laxman Siddappa HUF adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee should also cooperate in submitting the information. And the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed

Dhirajlal Nathubhai Bhut, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 574/RJT/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Oct 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 251Section 271(1)(b)Section 272(1)

erred in law as well as on facts in not considering the submission of the appellant and in not providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 4. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in not adjudicating the grounds of appeal raised

Uppalapadu Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited, Uppalapadu, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

ITA 523/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan Sआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.523/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19) Uppalapadu Primary Vs. Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Cooperative Ward-2(1), Society Limited, Guntur. Uppalapadu, Guntur. Pan: Aaaau4669G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती Shri R. Siva Rama Krishna, "ारा/Assessee By: Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 31/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Society Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 25.01.2024 Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 Read With Sections 144 & 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”) Dated 25.01.2024 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The 2 Uppalapadu Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited Vs. Ito

For Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 80P

approval of specified authority, with respect to the information which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; (b) provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, with the prior approval of specified authority, by serving upon him a notice to show cause within such time ... which suggests that 17 Uppalapadu Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited vs. ITO the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; (ii) provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, with the prior approval of specified authority; (iii) consider the reply of the assessee furnished, if any, in response

Vinta Laboratories Pvt Ltd, Vishakhapatnam vs. DCIT Circle 3(1), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 467/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.467/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2021-22) Vs. Dcit – Circle – 3(1) Vinta Laboratories Private Limited Plot No. 23-D, Apsez- De-Notified Area 1St Floor, Infinity Towers Apiic Rambilli Mandal D.No. 50-92-34/1/1 Visakhapatnam – 531011 Sankarmatham Road Andhra Pradesh Resapuvanipalem, Shanthipuram Visakhapatnam – 530016 [Pan:Aarcs7889P] Andhra Pradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri N.R. Agrawal, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 37

final opportunity to the assessee to represent its case before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee is directed for furnish relevant documents before Ld. CIT(A) without seeking unnecessary adjournments, failing which

Rajaji Educational Society, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 437/VIZ/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

under section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act before Ld. CIT(A). We therefore direct the Ld. CIT(A) to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the case on merits in accordance with law. Assessee is also directed to cooperate with the remand proceedings ... condone the delay of 46 days and decide the issue on merits in accordance with law by providing one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 16. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Rajaji Educational Society, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 436/VIZ/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

Janardhanan Namboodiri Muthathi Ellam, Kannur vs. ITO Ward 3, Kannur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA

ITA 687/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm Assessment Year: 2018-19 Janardhanan Namboodiri .......... Appellant Muthathi Ellam, Korrom P.O., Payannur Kannur 670370 [Pan: Aampe6755E] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Kannur ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Arun Raj, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 29.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 250

documentary evidence and submissions to be filed by the assessee and hearing the matter afresh in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, so as not to cause prejudice

Thekkedathu Raman Pillai Balachandran, Pachalam, Kochi vs. ITO, Non. Corp. Ward-1(1), Kochi

In the result, the appeal of assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 634/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Aravind and Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

shall consider the same in accordance with law and decide the matter afresh after granting the assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case so as to avoid any prejudice to the proceeding before the appellate

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kota vs. Motion Education Pvt. Ltd., Kota

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

ITA 472/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.472 & 455/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 DCIT, Central Circle, Kota बनाम Vs. Motion Education Limited, 394, Rajeev Gandhi Nagar, Kota Private स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAICM4637L अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Motion Limited, CO. Nos.20 & 21/JP/2025 (Arising out of ITA. Nos.472 & 455/JP/2025) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2017-18 &

For Appellant: Mrs. Raksha Birla CA (V.C)For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 153A

appeal has not been argued by the appellant. On perusal of assessment order, it is evident that the appellant has been provided enough opportunity of being heard. The reply of the appellant has also been considered by the AO. Therefore, the issue of opportunity of hearing raised by the appellant

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kota vs. Motion Education Pvt. Ltd., Kota

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

ITA 455/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Mrs. Raksha Birla CA (V.C)For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 153A

Deepak Kumar Gupta, Kanpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(5), Kanpur

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

ITA 610/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144Section 147Section 69A

Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo order on this specific issue in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. (E) In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open court

Kishan Kumar Vinod Kumar, Kanpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(2), Kanpur

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

ITA 450/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year:2017-18 Kishan Kumar Vinod Kumar V. The Income Tax Officer 51/1, Ramganj Ward 1(1)(2) Kanpur (U.P) Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aafhk0124A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R

Section 115BSection 144Section 69A

aside. 02. Because the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in denying the opportunity of being heard to explain and substantiate the cause of delay in filing the appeal, the order passed by the CIT(A) is contrary to the provisions of law, the same ... Authority had not dealt with the issues in dispute on merits. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the AO has not allowed adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and has passed the impugned assessment order under section 144 of the Act, without bringing on record any material

Ram Dulari Kanojia Kalyan Samiti, Hardoi vs. ITO-3(2), Hardoi

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

ITA 184/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144BSection 147

file of the learned Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In view of the foregoing, the order of learned CIT(A) is set aside and issues in dispute are restored back ... No.184/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2017-18 3 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

Sar Senapati Umabai Dabhade Nagari Sahakari Patsansta Maryadit, Pune vs. PCIT-3, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 908/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay S. SuryawanshiFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

specific provision of section 80P(2) (d) r.w.s section 80P (4) of the Act 13. The Assessing Officer is directed to give adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing the fresh assessment order.” 6. Aggrieved, by such order of the Ld. PCIT, the assessee is in appeal