“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

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Phi Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and both the Rule 27 application of the assessee are allowed for A

ITA 3083/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 1Section 10(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

called ambiguous wording in the notice [has not] impaired or prejudiced the right of the assessee to a reasonable opportunity of being heard". It went onto observe that for sustaining the plea of natural justice on the ground of absence of opportunity, "it has to be established that prejudice

Heera Devi, Dehradun vs. Income Tax Officer, Dehradun

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

ITA 119/DDN/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun30 Oct 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 147Section 69

present Appeal. Heera Devi Vs. ITO 3. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has provided no opportunity of being heard to the Assessee and in violation of principals of natural justice, dismissed the appeal of the Assessee. 4. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental ... with a direction to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the Appeal afresh on its merits 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

Dinesh Chand, Tehri Garhwal vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(4)(5), Tehri

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5/DDN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 271DSection 69A

request made by the appellant. 3) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts by failing to provide reasonable opportunity of being heard. 4) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts by directing the Ld. AO to initiate penalty u/s 271D

Badan Singh, Agra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1), Agra

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

ITA 410/AGR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhbadan Singh, Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1)(1), Gulab Pura, Sikatara, Agra. Shamshabad, Agra – 283 125 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan :Etips2064D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anurag Sinha, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.10.2025 Date Of Order : 30.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman, Am : 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [For Short ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 23.06.2025 For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar For The Assessee Brought To Our Notice That The Ld. Cit (A) Decided The Issue Against The Assessee By Observing That Assessee Has Not Pursued The Appeal Despite Being Granted Several Opportunities & The Details Are Given In The First Appellate Order & By Relying On Several Decisions, He Dismissed The Appeal In Limine. He Also Submitted That Ao Has Also Passed The Assessment Order Ex-Parte

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, DR

parte, 2 hence he prayed that this issue may be remitted back to the file of AO with the prayer to give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He submitted that there are reasons for assessee for not appearing before the first appellate authority. 3. On the other ... parte. In our considered view and in the interest of justice, we are of the opinion that assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard on merit. Therefore, we restore the matter to the file of AO and direct the AO to decide the issue on merit

Mukesh Kumar, Auraiya vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(4), Auraiya

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

ITA 219/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR

Section 271A

Further, we restore the matter to the file of the ld. CIT (A) to decide afresh both the appeals, 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

Mukesh Kumar, Auraiya vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(4), Auraiya

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

ITA 218/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR

Section 271A

Bhagyodaya Seva Sansthan, Bhilwara vs. CIT, Exemption, Jaipur

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 92/JODH/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

Section 12Section 12ASection 80Section 80GSection 80G(5)

restored to the file the CIT Exemption with direction to examine the matter afresh as per amended law after affording adequate opportunity of being heard. The AR undertakes to make compliance to all the quarries of the CIT exemption in the fresh proceedings. The Ld. CIT(DR) has no objection ... under section 12 AB of the Income Tax Act to the file of the Ld. CIT exemption for afresh adjudication after granting adequate opportunity of being heard and considering the written submissions filed on the record and to be filed during fresh proceedings. Appellant and its council are also directed

Bhagyodaya Seva Sansthan, Bhilwara vs. CIT, Exemption, Jaipur

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

ITA 91/JODH/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

Section 12Section 12ASection 80Section 80GSection 80G(5)

Reodar Welfare Foundation, Sirohi vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

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

ITA 58/JODH/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT-DR

Section 12A

with the direction that the matter be remanded to the file of the ld. CIT (Exemption), Jaipur for fresh adjudication after affording due opportunity of being heard. 9. Both the parties fairly submitted that the facts and circumstances of other appeal i.e ITA No. 58 / Jodh/2025 are exactly identical

Reodar Welfare Foundation, Sirohi vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

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

ITA 57/JODH/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT-DR

Section 12A

Baby Kunwar Jhala, Neemuch vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Udaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA Nos

ITA 87/JODH/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

Section 148Section 68

settlement Commission. 8. Considering the peculiar facts of the case, we are of the considered view that the appellant deserves one more opportunity of being heard as she has a good arguable case. In view of natural justice, we remand back the matter to the AO, to examine the issue ... afresh after granting adequate opportunity of being heard and taking into consideration the outcome of the proceeding pending in the case of Mr Vikram Anjana who has accepted the addition before the settlement Commission in whose hands substantive assessment is mad by the AO. 9. Thus, the impugned order

Shyam Lal Suthar, Jodhpur vs. ACIT/DCIT, Circle-1, Jodhpur

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 791/JODH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar Gehlot, Addl. CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270A

recipient or through the competent authority under the exchange- of-information framework, after recording proper reasons in writing. The AO shall afford adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, follow due process, and then decide the issue afresh by a speaking order in accordance with law. Needless

Sagataram, Bikaner vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bikaner

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

ITA 780/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

/NFAC to adjudicate the appeal of the assessee afresh by addressing the grounds of appeal on merit of the case after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and considering the written submissions and documentary evidences filed on record and may be filed in the de novo appellate

Pushkar Nagda, Kanakheda vs. Dy Commissioner of Incometax, Udaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA Nos

ITA 352/JODH/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

Section 148Section 68

Bherulal Nagda, Kanakheda vs. Dy Commission of Income-Tax, Udaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA Nos

ITA 351/JODH/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

Section 148Section 68

Gayatri Sharma, Kelukheda Teh. Choti Sadri vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Udaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA Nos

ITA 338/JODH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

Section 148Section 68

Gayatri Sharma, Neemuch vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Udaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA Nos

ITA 337/JODH/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

Section 148Section 68

Ram Chandra Anil Kumar Goyak HUF, Geetayan vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Income-Tax Office Udaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA Nos

ITA 468/JODH/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

Section 148Section 68

ACIT, Central Circle-1, Jodhpur vs. M/S. Adarsh Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Sirohi

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

ITA 212/JODH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Prakul Khurana, Advocate and Shri Mukesh Soni, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 33Section 35Section 40Section 56Section 5ASection 67(1)Section 73

shall be examined afresh on their own merits, in accordance with law. (iii) The CIT(A) shall afford the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard, permit filing of any additional evidence, if warranted, in terms of Rule 46A, and shall pass a well-reasoned, speaking order dealing point-by-point

ACIT, Central Circle-1, Jodhpur vs. M/S. Adarsh Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Sirohi

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

ITA 211/JODH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Prakul Khurana, Advocate and Shri Mukesh Soni, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 33Section 35Section 40Section 56Section 5ASection 67(1)Section 73