“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

North City Hospital & Neuro Institute Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, TDS Ward 2(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 1373/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Oct 2025AY 2015-2016

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

For Appellant: Shri S.Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj, Sr. DR

file of ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Mumbai to adjudicate the issues afresh and pass a speaking order after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. 3 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court

Hijaldiha Vivekananda Seva Samity, Hijaldiha vs. CIT(Exemptions), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1177/KOL/2025[----]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Oct 2025

Bench: 01.04.2021. Being An Old Registered Trust Assessee Has Filed Application For Registration U/S.

Section 124(1)(ac)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 2

dated 09.11.2022 was set aside and restored to his file by the ITAT for passing another order after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In this case, Form 10AB u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) had been filed

M/S. Educational Concepts Innovators International, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Bengaluru

Accordingly all these additional grounds are dismissed

ITA 19/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Sri M. Monish Sowkar, A.R

Section 147Section 148Section 234Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 44A

admitting the appeal since the assessee did not pay an amount equal to the amount of advance tax without giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 10. Ld. D.R. on the other hand supported the order of the authorities below. 11. We have heard the rival submissions

Late Urmila Ushakant Sheth Through Legal Heir Mrs. Daksha Sanghavi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 30(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 970/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: the learned CIT(A), NFAC on the same issue and also mentioned the same in the written submissions filed.

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: 03.04.2025

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153(3)Section 250Section 50C

above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in not providing an opportunity of being heard by way of a video conferencing despite being specifically requested for it.” 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: i. The assessee

Prince Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 35(2)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 561/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 Prince Jain Income Tax Officer, Flat No. 302, Ward 32(2)(5), Kesar Exotica Towers Mumbai Sector, 10 Building No. 3 Vs. Khargar, Navi Mumbai – 410210 Maharashtra Pan: Ahfpj2015G (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Rutuja N. Pawar and Ms. Sneha More, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

grounds raised by the assessee at the first appellate stage by passing a speaking order. Needless to say, assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard and to make all the relevant submissions as required to substantiate the claim made by it. 9. Since, we have remitted the matter back

Talakshi Palan Visaria Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai

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

ITA 5057/MUM/2025[2026-27]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2026-27

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT, D/R

Section 80G(5)

should accept the application as filed under the proper Section and decide the issue afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee is directed to furnish necessary documents in support of its claim of registration. I.T.A. No. 5057/Mum/2025

Arham Anmol Projects Private Limited, Village Valshind, Bhiwandi vs. Circle 1 Kalyan, Kalyan, Thane

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is disposed of accordingly in

ITA 4929/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 748

read as under:- “Section 254. (1) The Appellate Tribunal may, after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit." 10. It is thus clear from section 254(1) of the Act, while disposing the appeal filed

Manasvi Project Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 12(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4921/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 143(2)

4921/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2012-13 Manasvi Project Private Limited “1) The Ld. Commissioner has erred in law and fact in not giving proper opportunity of being heard and in determining the fact that the appellant has intentionally avoided to furnish the details before the assessing officer and confirming the addition ... issue back to the Ld.AO for necessary verification and to consider the claim in accordance with law. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee in accordance with law. Accordingly the grounds raised by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Shri Ramkumar Meghraj Tekariwal Baraganwala Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT(Exemption), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4808/MUM/2025[N.A]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

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

Honourable Ld. CIT(E) is not considering the adjournment request submitted before him against show cause notice and also not giving a proper opportunity of being heard, is an amount to a violation of the principles of natural justice. 3. The Honourable Ld. CIT(E) has erred in rejecting

Ramasaray Jagdevprasad Kewat, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, National E Assessment Centre

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4405/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri (Sr.AR)

Section 144Section 250(6)

appeal back to the file of the ld.AO in the light of above discussion so that the assessee may be provided a final opportunity of being heard and granting fresh opportunity to the assessee to advance his arguments/submissions before the AO so as to provide details

M.Lakhamsi& Co., Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4304/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Mr. Ketan Vajani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kasuri, (Sr. AR)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292B

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

Mohammed Rauf Farook Khan, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Thane

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 4015/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Madhukeshwar Hegde, CAFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kasuri,(Sr. AR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)

appeal back to the file of the AO in the light of above discussion that as the assessee was not provided adequate opportunity of being heard and granting fresh opportunity to the assessee to advance his arguments/submissions before the AO so as to provide details in connection with the merits

Shailesh Hatmal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3464/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 143(3)Section 250

restore the issue back to the file of the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication 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). It is clarified that in case

Subha Hariharan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 35(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1154/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12 Subha Hariharan Income Tax Officer, Plot No. 4 B 503/504, Ward 35(3)(4), Dosti Elite Tower -B Mumbai Vs. Next To Sion Telephone Exchange Sion (W), Mumbai – 400022 (Pan: Acmph5705R) (Assessee) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Mr. Ruturaj Gurjar, Advocate Revenue : Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. Dr (Virtually Appeared) Date Of Hearing : 30.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1071531320(1), Dated 24.12.2024 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income-Tax Officer, Ward – 35(3)(4), Mumbai, U/S. 144 R.W.S.147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 27.12.2018 For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Passing The Order Dated 24/12/2024 Without Giving Reasonable Opportunity To The Petitioner To Represent Its Case.

For Appellant: Mr. Ruturaj Gurjar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 249(2)Section 249(3)

Mukon Construction Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1152/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Srivashtav,ARFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kasuri, (Sr. AR)

Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292B

Devang Bhupendra Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 32(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4218/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankardevang Bhupendra Shah, V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – B/9, Neminath Apt., बनाम 32(1)(4), Kautilya Bhavan, Shimpoli Road, Borivali Bandra Kurla Complex, West, Mumbai – 400 092, Bandra (East), Mumbai– Maharashtra 400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadps1211L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Kapadia,ARFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kasuri, (Sr. AR)

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

relied on the statement of third party and on enquiries made on the back of the appellant, without giving proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard and of cross verification by the appellant. 3. Brief facts of the case are that in the present case, Long Term Capital Gains claimed

Sutanuti Tie Up Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

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

ITA 4041/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh.Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2015-16 Sutanuti Tie Up Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Delhi Flat No.801, 8Th Floor, Block- B, The Sb Yudh, Cghs Pno-6B, Sec-2, Phase-I, Dwarka, Near Moth, Er Dairy, New Delhi Pan No.Aancs1363E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

appeal is restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Further the assessee is also at liberty to submit any explanation/ material / evidence in support of its claim. 11. In the result, the appeal

Alankit Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2), Delhi

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

ITA 3207/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Lal Chandani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 115Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

Tribunal in the case of Kanoi Paper & Industries Ltd. Vs. ACIT (supra). Needless to say that the Assessing Officer shall provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee is at liberty to provide all the necessary information in support of its contention.” 7. Since the above ... issue back to the file of AO to consider the 7 alternative plea of the assessee as per law after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal

Bhagwan Singh, Ghaziabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 1768/DEL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 147

restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide the issues afresh after allowing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to provide necessary information /documents as required by the authorities. 3 [A.Y 2012-13] Bhagwan Singh

Mohammad Isha, Varanasi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(2), Varanasi

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

ITA 34/VNS/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Mohammad Isha V. The Income Tax Officer B-18/52, Rewri Talab Ward 2(2) Varanasi (U.P) Varanasi Tan/Pan:Aaqpi6457F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Bansal, Advocate Respondent By: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R

Section 115BSection 144Section 271ASection 69A

interest of substantial justice, the matter may be restored to the file of the AO for deciding the same afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He submitted that the assessee undertakes to produce all the relevant documents in support of his claim before