← 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

Chills China Rao, Nabarangpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jeypore Ward, Jeypore

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

ITA 426/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.426/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Chilla China Rao Vs Ito, Jeypore Ward, Jeypore Telugu Street, Nabarangpur, 764059 Pan No. : Arrpr 9207 Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None (Adjournment Application Filed) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A),National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac),Delhi Dated 11/03/2025 Passed In Appeal No. Nfac/2015-16/10151453 For The Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. None Represented On Behalf Of The Assessee. The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Has Filed An Adjournment Letter Mentioning As Follows :-

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application filed)For Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr DR

assessee to represent its matter before both the authorities. However, in the interest of justice and so as to grant the assessee another opportunity of being heard, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity

Sanjay Prabhudayal Tekriwal, Surat vs. I.T.O Ward 2(3)(4), Surat

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

ITA 511/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitrta Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.511/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing) Sanjay Prabhudayal Tekriwal Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(4), बनाम/ S-1026 Gautam Textile Surat, Room No.613, 6Th Floor, Vs. Market, 1St Floor, Ring Aaykar Bhawan, Near Majura Road,Surat-394 010 Gate, Opp. Civil Hospital, Surat- 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adxpt 9123 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Ms. Namita Patel, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 26/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 145(1)Section 250Section 68

well as law on the subject, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the ex parte order without giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard. ITA No.511/Srt/2025 A.Y 17-18 Sanjay P Tekriwal 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well ... Learned Authorized Representative (Ld. AR) of the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) has passed the order without giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The CIT(A) issued only one notice but did not allow any adjournment though request was made

Shree Shildha Vibhag Jungle Kamdar Sahakari Mandli Ltd, Valsad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4, Valsad

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

ITA 461/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.461/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 (Hybrid Hearing) Shree Shildha Vibhag Jungle Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Kamdar Sahakari Mandli Ward-4, Valsad Vs. At & Post Nana Pondha, Kaprada Road, Valsad-396 065 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaas 6185 R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Respondent By Shri Abhishek Gautam, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 23/09/2025 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025

Section 144Section 250

well as law on the subject, the learned CFT(A) has erred in passing ex-parte order without giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard.” ITA No.461/Srt/2025 A.Y 12-13 SSVJKSMandli Ltd. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject ... plead his case. It is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest its case. Accordingly, we hold that the interests of justice would be met in case the AO re-examines the entire

Milanben Narendra Choksi, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(2)(3), Surat

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

ITA 404/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitrta Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.404/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing) Milanben Narendra Choksi Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(3), बनाम/ Mu, Wd.No.3/628, Navapura Surat, Room No.118, First Floor, Vs. Karva Road, Surat-395 003 Aaykar Bhawan, Near Majura Gate, Opp. Civil Hospital, Surat- 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aappc 8557 R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Sapnesh R. Sheth, Advocate राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 19/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145Section 250

case on merit. It is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to plead his case. Accordingly, we hold that the interests of justice would be met in case the AO examines the case ... remit the matter back to the file of AO for de novo assessment and to pass a speaking order after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to appellant. The appellant is also directed to be more vigilant and furnish explanation and submit relevant details and documents before

Bhadrabala Dhimantrai Joshi, Surat vs. ACIT Circle-1(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 126/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.126/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing) Bhadrabala Dhimantrai Joshi Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ 6Th Shree Nagar Society, Ghod Income-Tax, Circle-1(3), Surat, Vs. Dod Road, Surat-395 001 Anavil Business Centre, Adajan, Surat-395 007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aazpj 4561 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Appellant By Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04/08/2025 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, 'The Act’) Dated 20.01.2025 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Nfac), Delhi /Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short, The ‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017- 18, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao’) U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 03.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee For The Appeal Are As Under: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Making Addition Of Rs.1,21,92,898/- On Account Of Alleged Disallowing Immunity Claimed U/S.2(14) Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 By Treating Again As Business Income, Which Ground Has Never Been Conveyed And/Or Initiated To Respond & Revealed Through Assessment Order Only. As No Opportunity Is Afforded Either Through Any Notice And/Or More

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(8)

appellate proceedings, it was observed by CIT(A) that the AO made addition after considering all the details and after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is further observed by the CIT(A) that the assessee was not actually an agriculturist but a lawyer by profession

Income Tax Officer, Surat vs. Saffron Green International Private Limited, Surat

In the result, appeal of revenue is partly allowed

ITA 958/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.958/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 (Hybrid Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Saffron Green International Pvt. बनाम/ 2(1)(3), Surat, Room No.221, Ltd. Shop No.3008, Shree Mahavir Vs. 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Textiles Puna Kumbhariya Road, Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 Surat-395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aawcs 3137 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Deven K. Kapadia, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Aashish Pophare, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 10/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: This Appeal By The Revenue Emanates From The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, 'The Act’) Dated 16.07.2024 By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short, ‘The Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao’) U/S. 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Act On 21.03.2023. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: “I. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Restricting The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Of Rs.5,70,70,621/- On Account Of 100% Bogus Purchase To 0.25% Of The Bogus Purchases & Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee Ignoring The Facts That These Purchases Are Sham Transactions Fabricated Through Bogus Paper Concerns Of M/S. Savitri Trading Company & Mohammed Javed Mohammed Jabir Momin Which Were Engaged In Providing Accommodation Entries.

Section 147Section 250Section 250(2)

case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has violated the principles of natural justice while admitting the additional evidences and not providing opportunity of being heard to the AO as per the provisions of section 250(2) of the Income tax Act, 1961 and Rule