← 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

M/S Sugee Ten Developers LLP, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward 2(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 8284/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Bhagat Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. Needless to say, the assessee shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard during the set-aside (Assessment Years: 2018-19 to 2020-21 & 2022-23) M/s. Sugee Ten Developers LLP assessment proceedings. Accordingly, the appeal

Shri Surti Modh Vanik Jagruti Mandal, Mumbai vs. CIT Exemption, Mumbai

ITA 8229/MUM/2025[2026-27]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2026-27

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 13(1)(b)Section 80G

decide the same afresh as per law, in light of aforesaid observations. 9. Needless to say, the assessee trust be afforded with reasonable opportunity of being heard in the set aside proceedings. 10. In result, both the appeals of assessee-trust are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

Shri Surti Modh Vanik Jagruti Mandal, Mumbai vs. CIT Exemption, Mumbai

ITA 8227/MUM/2025[2026-27]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2026-27

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 13(1)(b)Section 80G

decide the same afresh as per law, in light of aforesaid observations. 9. Needless to say, the assessee trust be afforded with reasonable opportunity of being heard in the set aside proceedings. 10. In result, both the appeals of assessee-trust are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

M/S. Supreme Infrastructure India Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 15(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 8172/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita Shah (Virtually appear)For Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Bhagat Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

requested that the matter be remanded to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. The Learned Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) submitted that the Ld. AR had failed to demonstrate any reasonable cause ... ensure that the appellate proceeding remand uninfluenced before the Ld. CIT(A). It is imperative that the assessee is allowed the reasonable opportunity of being heard. Furthermore, the assessee (Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17) M/s. Supreme Infrastructure India Limited is expected to exercise due diligence

M/S. Supreme Infrastructure India Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 15 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 8171/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita Shah (Virtually appear)For Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Bhagat Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

requested that the matter be remanded to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. The Learned Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) submitted that the Ld. AR had failed to demonstrate any reasonable cause ... ensure that the appellate proceeding remand uninfluenced before the Ld. CIT(A). It is imperative that the assessee is allowed the reasonable opportunity of being heard. Furthermore, the assessee (Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17) M/s. Supreme Infrastructure India Limited is expected to exercise due diligence

M/S. Supreme Infrastructure India Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 15 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 8170/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita Shah (Virtually appear)For Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Bhagat Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

requested that the matter be remanded to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. The Learned Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) submitted that the Ld. AR had failed to demonstrate any reasonable cause ... ensure that the appellate proceeding remand uninfluenced before the Ld. CIT(A). It is imperative that the assessee is allowed the reasonable opportunity of being heard. Furthermore, the assessee (Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17) M/s. Supreme Infrastructure India Limited is expected to exercise due diligence

Shanklesha Construction, Mumbai vs. DCIT - Circle 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 8091/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Arun Khodpiashanklesha Construction Dcit Circle 19(3), Mumbai Sai Nirvana, Opp Century Rayon, Piramal Chambers, Morarjee Vs. Near Shahad Station, Kalyan, Mills Compound, Next To Thane 421103 Bharatmata Cinema Hall, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abtfs2291K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Piyush Chhajed CA & ShriFor Respondent: Shri. Arun Kanti Datta-CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the assessee was not afforded an effective and meaningful opportunity of being heard before the Ld. CIT(A). The appellate order was passed ex parte without adjudicating the grounds on merits. In the interest of substantial justice

Harsha Bojarao Devraj, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 41(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 8012/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejveer SinghFor Respondent: Ms. Deepika Arora
Section 115BSection 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

appeal before the Learned CIT(A) for denovo adjudication before Learned CIT(A) as per law after granting the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Assessee is directed to be vigilant and track the appellate proceedings through Income Tax Business Application (ITBA) Portal. It is clarified that in case

Aditya Ramsingh Agarwal, Mumbai vs. ACIT, 17(1), Mumbai, Bkc, Bandra

ITA 7180/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Deepika Arora
Section 143(3)Section 144B

case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in passing the order ex parte without providing proper and effective opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. 1.1 The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the non- attendance was neither deliberate nor willful, and the Appellant was prevented ... appeal, it has been contended by the Assessee that the impugned order was passed by Learned CIT(A) without granting the Assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard. It has been further contended that non-appearance before the Learned CIT(A) was neither deliberate nor willful. Per contra the Learned Departmental

ITO-42(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Willish Mukesh Maru, Mumbai

ITA 6168/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Pravin Adake & Shri KartikFor Respondent: Shri Raghvendra P. Chambolkar
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

aforesaid observations deem it fit to restore this matter to the file of ld. AO for fresh adjudication. 7. Needless to say, reasonable opportunity of being heard to be allowed to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to co-operate and proactively comply with the set-aside assessment proceedings

Income Tax Officer-4(1), Raipur, Central Revenue Building vs. Mohammad Ibrahim, Prop Janta Sanitation

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

ITA 698/RPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 698/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2022-23) Income Tax Officer, Ward - 4(1), Vs Mohammand Ibrahim, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Ring Road No. 1, Pachpedinaka Raipur- 492001, C.G. Raipur- 492001, C.G. Pan: Aigpm6755J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 05/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: The Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2022-23 Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 08.09.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 148Section 69C

declared in the original ITR filed on 17.09.2022). 3.1 During the course of assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO provided many opportunities of being heard to the assessee to explain the genuineness of the transaction of Rs.1,01,47,216/-. However, no compliance was ensured by the assessee in this regard ... case afresh/denovo, in accordance with 13 Income Tax Officer-4(1), Raipur vs. Mohammad Ibrahim the law and above observations, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We order accordingly. The assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in remitted appellate proceedings. 12. In the result, this appeal

V Y Institute of Medical Science Private Limited, Raipur vs. ACIT-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 480/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68

Raipur reasons and circumstances that prevented the appellant from effectively pursuing the appeal before the CIT(A), thereby denying the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 2. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.2,32,49,970/- on account ... Priyanka Patel, Ld. Sr. DR, drawing our attention to various paras of the assessment order and impugned appellate order, submitted that reasonable opportunities of being heard had been provided to the appellant assessee by the Authorities below; Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A). However, the appellant assessee tactfully ensured noncompliance

Dinesh Agarwal HUF, Patna vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Ranchi

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 263/RAN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 143(3)Section 40

deciding the appeal afresh in accordance with law. Needless to direct that before passing the order, the ld. CIT(A) shall grant reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to avail this opportunity and not to cause further delay and seek adjournment without

Dinesh Agarwal HUF, Patna vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 262/RAN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 143(3)Section 40

deciding the appeal afresh in accordance with law. Needless to direct that before passing the order, the ld. CIT(A) shall grant reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to avail this opportunity and not to cause further delay and seek adjournment without

Ekta Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2651/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

objections. The main objection raised was that under the provision of Section 148A(b) of the Act, the assessee should be provided an opportunity of being heard by serving upon the assessee a notice to show cause within such time as may be specified in the notice being not less ... prima facie, satisfied that there was merit in Petitioner's submissions. Section 148-A(B) of the Act reads as under:- "provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, by serving upon him a notice to show cause within such time, as may be specified in the notice, being

M/S. Krishnabhakta Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2426/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) As Referred By The Ld. Cit(A) On Page No. 6 Which Were Not Admitted By The Ld. Cit(A).

Section 250

remand the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) to decide all the issues for denovo adjudication after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after taking into a remand report from the AO. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee

M/S. B.C.H. Electric Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 7, Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1901/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2026AY 2011-2012

Bench: The 2 M/S B.C.H. Electric Limited Ao Full Compliance Was Not There. The Ld. Ar Therefore, Prayed That In The Interest Of Justice & Fair Play, The Assessee May Be Allowed One More Opportunity Of Presenting Its Case Before The Ld. Cit(A).

Section 250

restore the issue to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with a direction to decide the same after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. In result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 05.03.2026 (Pradip Kumar Choubey) (Rajesh

S 778 R Pattanam Primary Agricultural Co-Op Credit Society, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward 2, Namakkal

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

ITA 3374/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. V. Sreeraman, CA (Virtual)For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam
Section 143(3)Section 249(3)Section 68

with a direction to adjudicate the appeal afresh on merits, in accordance with law, after affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 16. The assessee is directed to extend full cooperation in the appellate proceedings and to furnish all requisite details and documents

Sri Durga Commercials, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(3), Bengaluru

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

ITA 3092/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing
Section 250

file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. 10.4 The Assessing Officer shall afford reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and shall decide the issues . Page 10 of 10 afresh in accordance with law after examining the books of account and other evidence that

Imran Siddiqui, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Mysore

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

ITA 2238/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Kothari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing
Section 131Section 250Section 44A

revised computation, the applicability of section 44AD, the source of cash deposits, and the claim of business expenditure afresh after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate fully and furnish all necessary evidence in support of his claims. Accordingly, the ground