“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

Printech Park Cluster Bangalore, Bengaluru vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1065/BANG/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2025-26

For Appellant: Shri Kupendra Setty, CAFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan M, CIT-DR

Section 12A

12AB Ground No. 6 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (Exemptions) has not given reasonable opportunity of being heard, before issue of rejection order, to meet the natural justice. No Show cause notice is issued. Reasonable opportunity of 6 Rs. 0 being

Shri Ram Ek Dharmada Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 4543/MUM/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarshri Ram Ek V/S. Commissioner Of Income Tax Dharmada Trust बनाम (Exemption), Mumbai, 601, 6Th 9, Babulnath Road, Floor, Cumballa Hill, Mtnl Te Chowpatty Road, Mumbai Building, Peddar Road, Dr. 400 007, Maharashtra Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Cumballa Hill Mumbai 400026, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aahts2280D Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, (CIT DR)

Section 80GSection 80G(5)

natural justice as the P a g e | 5 A.Y. 2025-26 Shri Ram Ek Dharmada Trust assessee was not afforded reasonable opportunities of being heard to submit its contentions in defence to the basis of rejection of application. 5.1 It is a case of the assessee that ... wrong clause inadvertently while filing the application for final registration in Form 10AB. Further, we notice that assessee did not have the opportunity of being heard before ld. CIT(E) which otherwise assessee might have explained the facts to avoid the impugned rejection. It is not denied that the assessee

Ruby Rajendra P Tiwari, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(3)(2), Mumbai

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3546/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay ChaudharyFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 192Section 45Section 69ASection 69C

Ld.CIT(A) is set aside with the directions to adjudicate the appeal afresh on merits after granting the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Assessee is also directed to co-operate in the appellate proceedings and forthwith file details, documents & submission in support of its claims/contentions before

Mohanji Bharat Welfare Foundation, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 2617/MUM/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 11(1)(c)Section 80G

registration under Section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act) and rejecting the application filed by the Appellant without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(E) has erred in passing an order dated

Samarpan Foundation, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward (Exemption)-, Thane

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

ITA 2502/MUM/2025[N.A ]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhansamarpanfoundation Cit(Exemptions) House No. 510, Padgha Road, R. No. 322, 3Rdfloor, Income Navjivan Hospital At Ambadi, Po- Vs. Tax Office, Pmt Building, Dighashi, Thane, Maharashtra- Shankar Set Road, Pune, 421302 Maharashtra-411307. Pan: Abxas9939B (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

appeal:- “1. The Learned CIT (exemption) erred in rejecting the application under 80G. thereby violating the principles of natural justice, not providing an opportunity of being heard is against the principle of natural justice 2.The Learned CIT (Exemptions) erred in rejecting the application solely on a technical error, leaving ... wrong section code inadvertently while filing the application for final registration in Form 10AB. Further, we notice that assessee did not have the opportunity of being heard before ld. CIT(E) due to incorrect course of action advised, which otherwise assessee might have explained the facts to avoid the impugned

Walmark Garment Compamy Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 14(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA 6979/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt.Renu Jauhriwalmark Garment Company Vs. Income Tax Officer Pvt. Ltd. Ward 14(3)(1), Ch. No. 9 , Shop No. 18, Aayakar Bhavan, Porbandarwala Chawl, Mumbai-400020. Chiragnagar, L.B.S Marg, Ghatkopar West, Mumbai-400086. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacw9438P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar JhaFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary- Sr. AR

Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69C

facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the order ex-parte without allowing adequate opportunity of being heard; 2.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held the notice u/s 148 as invalid ... assessment in the case of an assessee for the relevant assessment year, he shall, before issuing any notice under section. 148 provide an opportunity of being heard to such assessee by serving upon him a notice to show cause as to why a notice under section. 148 should

Karnal Co-Op Sugar Mills Ltd, Karnal vs. ACIT Circle, Karnal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6334/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Manish Agarwalआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6334/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Karnal Co-Op Sugar Mills Ltd. Acit, Meerut Road, Karnal, Vs. Circle, Haryana. Ff, Ayakar Bhawan, Pan No.Aaffk9357F Sector-12, Karnal, Haryana. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250Section 271Section 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