“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

SHI vs. Iddhi Education Society, Sataravs.CIT Exemption Pune, Pune

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1774/PUN/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Sept 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1774 & 1786/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: - Shivsiddhi Education Society, V The Cit Exemption, 10, S.No.272/A, Midc S. Pune. Chandan Nagar, Degaon, Satara – 415004. Pan: Aapts1266F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Ca Rani C. Mutha Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde- Cit Date Of Hearing 10/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune Rejecting The Application For Grant Of Registration U/S.12A R.W.S 12Ab & 80G(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As „The Act‟) Both Dated 20.09.2024Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. We Treat The Appeal In Ita

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

item (B) of sub-clause (vi) of sub-section (1) of section 12A, rejecting such application, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard;] 11.3 Thus, as per the Section 12AB of the Act, the ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption) has to satisfy about Genuineness of the Activities, Charitableness

Magnaquest Technologies Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, ITA.No.736/Hyd

ITA 743/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, G Srinivasa RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 438Section 43B

details submitted by the assessee are genuine. Further, as per the grounds of appeal it is stated by the assessee that no proper opportunity of being heard was given by the AO during the 24 ITA.Nos.736 & 743/Hyd./2025 penalty proceedings. However, it can be very well confirmed from ... levied in its case, for which the assessee neither replied nor filed any submission Therefore, the claim of the assessee that no opportunity of being heard was given is rejected. 5.3. On further verification of the submission of the assessee it has been stated that the assessee had paid taxes

Magnaquest Technologies Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, ITA.No.736/Hyd

ITA 736/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, G Srinivasa RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 438Section 43B

Sama Sangeeta Reddy Rep. by Gpa Holder Sama Sunil Kumar Reddy, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 680/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, KA Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

with respect to the information which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Further, the Assessing Officer shall provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee by serving upon him a notice under section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further, consider the reply

Exel Rubber Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for the

ITA 1233/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CA

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148BSection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

approval of specified authority, with respect to the information which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; (b) provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, by serving upon him a notice to show cause within such Page

Exel Rubber Private Limited, K.V.Rangareddy vs. ACIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1109/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CA

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148BSection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

Exel Rubber Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1108/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CA

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148BSection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

Exel Rubber Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1106/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CA

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148BSection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

ITA Nos 1106 to 1109 and 1233 of 2025 Exel Rubber Pvt Ltd आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE

Ace Tyres Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1086/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148BSection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

ITA Nos 1084 to 1088 and 1207 of 2025 ACE Tyres P Ltd आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE

Ace Tyres Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1085/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.1084 To 1088 & 1027/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148BSection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

ITA Nos 1084 to 1088 and 1207 of 2025 ACE Tyres P Ltd आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE

Keeran Multibusiness Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -12(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 4983/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 144Section 250Section 254(1)

provisions of 249(3) of the Act and rejecting the appellant's request for condonation of delay without giving proper and effective opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 2 That, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred in not adjudicating the appeal on merits ... cash deposit and completed the assessment afresh. 6 Keeran Multibusiness Private Limited 7. Needless to say, the assessee may be provided with reasonable opportunities of being heard. The assessee is directed to assist proactively in the assessment proceeding without any fail and respond to the notices and communication from

Pranoo Financial Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 13(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 4580/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi & Ms. Sruti KalyanikarFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

ground in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in- (i) not granting proper, sufficient, reasonable and fair opportunity of being heard to the Appellant while passing the appellate order; and (ii) not granting an opportunity of personal hearing. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE

Vinay Dalchand Mehta, Dombivali vs. Income Tax Officer Pne-W-(75)(94), Kalyan

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

ITA 4430/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhrivinay Dalchand Mehta Income Tax Officer Pne Flat No. 7, Moreshwar Cooperative Ward (75)(94) Vs. Housing Society Limited, R.P. Road, 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion Dombivli, 421201 Kalyan Murbad Road, Above Canara Bank, Kalyan 421301 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aazpm0583F (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्ााररती की ओर से / Assessee By: Shri. Sumedh Hinge /Revenue By: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M]: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"] Dated 27.03.2025 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Act"] For Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2022-23. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Sumedh HingeFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik SR. DR

Section 2Section 250Section 44A

part of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Considering the said decision, the Appellant ought to have been granted an opportunity of being heard which, partakes the characteristic of the fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India 12] The Appellant relays on following judgements

Moreshwar Builders and Developers & Tejas Superstrctures Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(2), Kalyan

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

ITA 3448/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2020-21 Moreshwar Builders & Income Tax Officer, Developers & Tejas Ward-3(2), Superstructures Vs. 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Private Limited Jv, Kalyan Murbad Road, A-01, Shubhvastu Apartment, Above Canara Bank, Pandit Dindayal Road, Kalyan Dombivli West, Maharashtra-421301. Thane, Maharashtra-421202. Pan : Aabam6975E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 23-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24-09-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Ahmedabad, Dated 13-03-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 194CSection 201Section 40

arbitrary and perverse. 2. VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE 2.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not granting proper, sufficient and adequate opportunity of being heard to the Appellant while framing the appellate order. 2.2 It is submitted that, in the facts and the circumstances of the case

Dilipkumar Phoolchand Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 20(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3373/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2020-21 Dilipkumar Phoolchand Jain, Dcit, Circle-20(1), A/1901-1902, Piramal Chambers, Vardhman Heights, Vs. Dr.Ss Rao Marg, Tb Kadam Marg, Parel, Byculla (East), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400027. Pan : Aarpj1996K (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Mr. Dipesh Ruparelia (Virtually Present) For Revenue : Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 22-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24-09-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr. Dipesh RupareliaFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 270ASection 272A(1)Section 274Section 37(1)Section 57

Erred in not considering the grounds and arguments made by the Appellant while passing the impugned order; 3. Erred in not granting an opportunity of being heard to the Appellant before passing an ex-parte order; 4. Erred in not considering the application for condonation of delay filed

M/S. Kushang Security and House Keeping Service Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2964/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 254(1)

confirming double disallowance of PF Damages of Rs 4,85,833/- without granting further opportunity of being heard to appellant representative before passing final order as the appellant could not respond to the notices due to circumstances beyond the control. Without Prejudice to above, the appellant further submits that ... appellant humbly prays that the order of honorable CIT(A) NFAC, New Delhi should be set aside & the appellant be given a fresh opportunity of being heard by Honorable CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi. 4) It is humbly prayed that the reliefs as prayed here-in-above and/or such other reliefs

Bombay East Rotary Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2914/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2022-23 Bombay East Rotary Income Tax Officer, Charitable Trust Ward 1(1), Sahakar Bhavan, Mumbai Kurla Industrial Estate Vs. L.B.S Marg, Ghatkopar, Mumbai - 400086 (Pan: Aaatb3999H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kulin V.Munim, CAFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 80G

considered on the merits by the ld. CIT(A) for their allowance. For this, the assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard to make its submission to justify and substantiate the claim so made. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result

Celestial Vision Limited, Bvi vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax Int Tax Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1625/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1625/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2022-23) Celestial Vision V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Limited बिधम Income Tax Circle 2(1)(1) Po Box No. 146, Road 604, Kautilya Bhawan, G Block, Town, Tortola, British Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Virgin Islands (East)400051. 111000. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaicc1160A Appellant/अपीलधथी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्धाररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri. Vipul J. Shah-Adv. रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Krishna Kumar Sr Dr सुिवधई की िधरीख / Date Of Hearing 05.08.2025 घोर्णध की िधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Vipul J. Shah-AdvFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar SR DR

Section 115ASection 144C(5)Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)

examine all the issues raised by the assessee and issue fresh directions to the Ld. AO vide a speaking order after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 10. Accordingly, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 24.09.2025. BEENA PILLAI

Avisha Cedit Capital Limited, Connaught Place vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CC-28, Delhi, Jhandewalan

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

ITA 3384/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwal

Section 153

side, the issue to the file is restored before the Ld. CIT(A) who decide the matter to the file after giving the opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to co-operate with the ITA No. 3384/Del/2025 Avisha Cedit capital Limited Vs. DCIT

Archana Saluja, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-5, Delhi

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

ITA 3198/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanarchana Saluja, Vs. Acit, Central Circle 5, 9 – A, Jeevan Jyoti Farms, Delhi. The Greens, Rajokri, New Delhi – 110 038. (Pan : Aanps2300L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2025 Date Of Order : 24.09.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 28.02.2025 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. We Proceeded To Adjudicate The Issue With The Assistance Of Ld. Dr Of The Revenue. 3. At The Time Of Hearing, It Was Observed That That The Ld. Cit (A) Decided The Issue Against The Assessee By Observing That Assessee Has Not Pursued

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR

remit back the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer with the directions to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, for which Ld. DR has no objection. Assessee is directed to fully cooperate with the AO during the proceedings. We hold