“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

Kailash Chand Meena, Alwar vs. ITO Ward2(3), Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 101/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT a

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in passing the Ex-party order, without providing adequate opportunity of being heard in gross breach of law which are bad in law, invalid, illegal and on facts of the case. Hence the order so passed ... stage itself.—CIT vs. K.C. Fibres Ltd. (2010) 187 Taxman 53 (Del) followed. 1.4 Thus the AO made the addition without providing any opportunity of being heard to the assessee nor he issued any show cause notice before making such addition and invoking the sec. 115BBE. During the course

Hira, Dausa vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Dausa

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

ITA 34/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ghanshyam Meena, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 234Section 69A

parte assessment proceedings u/s 144 of the IT Act, 1961, whereas while completing the assessment, the AO has not provided the reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee to explain his case. therefore the action of the Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC, 2 HIRA VS ITO, WARD -DAUSA Delhi ... view that lis between the parties has to be decided on merits so that nobody’s rights could be scuttled down without providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, the matter is restored to the file of the AO to decide it afresh by providing one more opportunity

Sunhari Lal Yadav, Kanpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(4), Kanpur

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

ITA 247/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2017-18 Sunhari Lal Yadav V. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(4) 5, Meerpur Cantt, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Meerpur, Pin-208001. Kanpur-208001. Tan/Pan:Abepy8185F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.A Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Dr O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. DR

Section 144Section 69A

that the notices though issued by the A.O were never received by the appellant and therefore the appellant was deprived of a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 2. That the order of the L.D CIT Appeals, upholding the assessment order passed under section 144 of Act, on the ground that ... appellate order are arbitrary, illegal, and void ab initio for lack of proper service of notices and denial of reasonable Opportunity to be heard. 11, That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing

Precious Bjuildtech Private Limited, Bareilly vs. PCIT, Bareilly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 66/LKW/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.66/Lkw/2022 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Precious Buildtech Pvt Ltd V. Pcit Harmony Apartment, Adiacent Income Tax Department, To Bedi International School, Bareilly-243001. Dental College Road, Pilibhit Bypass Road, Bareilly-243001. Pan:Aagcp1255R अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Mazhar Akram, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24 07 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 30 09 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mazhar Akram, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263

Officer is erroneous in so far as, it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances

Bolo India Trust, Karnal vs. CIT Exemption, Chandigarh

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

ITA 1063/CHANDI/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Rajat Kumar Kureel, CIT DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and approval u/s 80G(5)(iii) afresh on merits, in accordance with law, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bolo India Trust, Karnal, Haryana vs. CIT Exemptions, Chandigarh

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

ITA 1062/CHANDI/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, J.M, SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Rajat Kumar Kureel, CIT DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

Alpesh Sureshbhai Patel, Sadhli vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 1290/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Assessing Officer shall thereafter decide the matter afresh by passing a speaking and reasoned order in accordance with law and after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to fully cooperate in the proceedings and furnish all requisite details within the time granted

Chitrakar Deepak R. Patil Art Amd Culture Foundation, Raigad vs. CIT (Exemption), Pune

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1292/PUN/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2024-25

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajinkya M Vaishampayan (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

Learned CIT(Exemption), Pune, rejecting the application for registration u/s 12A. 3. The assessee Trust requests for an additional opportunity of being heard and making submission on merit. 4. The Assessee craves leave to add, alter, amend and delete nay of the grounds of appeal.” 5. Admittedly, the facts ... Learned CIT(Exemption), Pune, rejecting the application for registration u/s 80G. 3. The Assessee Trust requests for an additional opportunity of being heard and making submission on merit. 4. The Assessee craves leave to add, alter, amend and delete nay of the grounds of appeal.” 6. It is the submission

Chitrakar Deepak R. Patil Art Amd Culture Foundation, Raigad vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1291/PUN/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2024-25

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajinkya M Vaishampayan (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

Manisha Dhananjay Holkar, Nashik vs. Ward 1(1), Nashik

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

ITA 1204/PUN/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2015-2016

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69A

brought out above, it is evident that the appellant is not interested in filing any details during the appellant proceedings and avail the opportunity of being heard under the principle of natural justice. In response to the notices issued, the assessee remained non-responsive and even adjournment was not sought ... restore the matter back to his file to decide the issue afresh on merits as per fact and law after giving one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC on the appointed date and make

Dreams Belle Vue, Pune vs. ITO Ward-2(3), Pune

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

ITA 1158/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1157 & 1158/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2014-15 Dreams Belle Vue, 3Rd Floor, City Mall, University Road, Ganeshkind, Maharashtra-411007, Pan: Aaaad9013B अपीलार्थी / Appellant Assessee By : Department By : Date Of Hearing : Date Of Pronouncement : Ito, Ward-2(1), Pune Vs. प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Shri Kishor B Phadke Shri Vidya Ratan Kishore 01-09-2025 30-09-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Dated 15.02.2024 & 23.02.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)"] Pertaining To Assessment Years (“Ays”) 2016-17 & 2014-15 Respectively. Since Common Issues Are Involved, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. 2. There Is A Delay Of 383 & 375 Days Respectively In Filing Of These Appeals Before The Tribunal For Which The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Along With Application Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. On Perusal Of The Same, We Are Satisfied That The Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Not Intentional Or Deliberate But Has Occurred For The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit. After Hearing Both The Sides, We Are Of The View That The Delay Is Attributable To The Sufficient Cause. We, Therefore, In Light Of The Decisions Of The Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 Itr 471 (Sc) & In The Case Of Inder Singh Vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Reported In 2025 Livelaw (Sc) 339, Condone The Said Delay & Proceed To Decide The Appeal. 2

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

impugned order ex-parte qua assessee and dismissed the appeal by observing as under: “4. During the course of appellate proceedings, the opportunity of being heard was given to the appellant vide hearing notices dated 13.05.2022, 29.11.2023, 21.12.2023 and 18.01.2024. However there is no compliance. The appellant has thus failed ... restore the matter back to his file to decide the issue afresh on merits as per fact and law after giving one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to provide the correct and active e-mail id to the Department and remain

Dreams Belle Vue, Pune vs. ITO Ward 2 (1), Pune

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

ITA 1157/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

Ch Marthanda Rao & Co, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward - 14(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the order passed by the CIT(A) is modified in terms of our aforesaid observations, and the appeal filed by the assessee firm is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our afore...

ITA 966/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Us:

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 251(1)Section 69A

justice, set aside the matter to the file of the A.O. for fresh adjudication after carrying out necessary verifications and affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee appellant. 13. We have thoughtfully considered the facts involved in the present case in the backdrop of the orders ... Maruti Suzuki (supra), and ITO vs. Ch. Attchaiah (supra). The AO shall pass a reasoned order after giving the assessee appellant a fair opportunity of being heard. Ch Marthanda Rao and Co. 17. In the result, the order passed by the CIT(A) is modified in terms of our aforesaid

Ch Marthanda Rao and Co, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward - 14(1), Hyderabad

ITA 962/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Us:

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 251(1)Section 69A

Kalpana Veera Reddy, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(2), Hyderabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 931/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

matter be set-aside to the file of the AO with a direction to re-adjudicate the same after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 9. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 10. We have thoughtfully considered ... direction to re-adjudicate the same. Needless to say, the AO shall in the course of the set-aside proceedings afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee who shall remain at liberty to substantiate his claim based on fresh documentary evidence, if any. 11. Resultantly, the appeal

Vidyavathi Paluru, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

ITA 554/HYD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Us:

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

material available on record. Needless to say, the CIT(A) shall, in the course of the set-aside proceedings, afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who shall remain at liberty to substantiate 11 Vidyavathi Paluru vs. ITO his contentions based on any further documentary evidence

Purva, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1220/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

orders of the authorities below and restore the matter to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee shall in the course of the set aside proceedings be at liberty to substantiate her claim

Bikas Bhalotia, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 37(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1421/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Sept 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) Assessment Year : 2016-17 Bikas Bhalotia, Dutta House, 94, Vs. Ito, Ward 37(1), Kolkata Chittaranjan Avenue, Kolkata Pan/Gir No. Adupb 1341 C (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Chaudhury, Fca Revenue By : Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit (Sr Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/09/2025

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Chaudhury, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Kallol Mistry, JCIT (Sr DR)

Section 147

principle of natural justice, remit the matter back to the file of the ld CIT(A) with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before

Evolution Golf Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -6(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 754/MUM/2025[2010-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2010-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

consider the claim of the assessee in accordance with law. The Ld.CIT(A) is directed to pass detailed order by giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly the grounds raised by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. In the result the appeal filed

Hitesh Pawanraj Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer WD-19(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5322/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

Ld.CIT(A) is directed to verify the documents/evidences and to consider the claim in accordance with law. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to assessee. Accordingly, the grounds raised by assessee in all the appeals stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. In the result