← 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

ITO, Delhi vs. Usha Rani, Delhi

Appeal are allowed

ITA 2286/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2016-17 Ito, Vs Usha Rani, Ward-44(1), 593, Rani Bagh, Delhi. Delhi. Pan: Ahrpc1449F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.09.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 07.02.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeal No.Nfac/2015-16/10332913 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 08.03.2024 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Ito, Ward-44(1), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). 2. On Hearing Both The Sides, We Find That The Case Of The Revenue Is That The Assessee Has Been Erroneously Benefitted By The Ld.Cit(A) As The Source Of The Source Of Her Husband’S Agricultural Activities Has Not Been Examined. We Find That The Revenue Has Also Raised A Ground That Additional Evidences Were Accepted Without Giving The Ao An Opportunity To Contest.

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69

hands of her family members. Hence, these grounds of appeal are allowed. 7.4 Ground no. 5 is against not providing sufficient opportunity of being heard and denial of natural justice. During the assessmentproceedings, several notices u/s 142(1) were issued and served upon the appellant by the Assessing Officer

Jubilant Generics Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, Circle- 5(1)(1), G.B. Nagar

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

ITA 2004/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 92C

that the tested party selected by the assessee gives a reliable method and computation of ALP or not. Thereafter, after giving assessee an opportunity of being heard, determine the arm's-length price of the international transaction of trading segment of finished goods of the appellant assessee. For trading ... remitted back to the files of the AO/TPO for doing needful to arrive the ALP, in accordance with law, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant assessee. Ordered accordingly. The appellant assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in remitted proceedings. The ground limited to the issue of inclusion

Saroj Mahendrabhai Seth, Surendranagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Surendranagar

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

ITA 533/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Paren Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144

merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. 5. Considering the above facts, I note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the Id. CIT(A). I note that the Id. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee ... that principles of natural justice and fair play requir e. I note that it is e that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, I restore

Ashishkumar Bhagvanjibhai Kansagra, Rajkot vs. ACIT Cir - 2(1), RKT, Rajkot

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

ITA 409/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.409/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Ashishkumar Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Acit Kansagara, Circle – 2(1), C-507, Imperial Heights, Rajkot - 360001 150 Feet Ring Road, Rajkot - 360005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acspk6893P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Alpa V. Makadiya, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. 9. Considering the above facts, I note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). I note that the ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee ... note that 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 his case. However, on account of non-compliance attitude of the assessee, I imposed a cost

Umashanker Bishambharnath Sharma, Jetpur, Dist. Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward-1 (2) (3) Rajkot, Rajkot

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

ITA 303/RJT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No. 303/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2010-11 Umashanker Bishambharnath Sharma Income Tax Officer, Wd – 1(2)(3), Shree Ram Enterprise, B/5, Panchvati Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Society, Dhoraji Road, Road, Jetpur - 360370 Rajkot – 360001 Pan No.: Avwps1259C (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ld.Ar राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250

grounds raised by the assessee. 3 Umashanker B. Sharma 9. Considering the above facts, I note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). I note that the ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee ... note that 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 his case. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, I restore the matter

Annuva Infrastructure Private Limited, Nagpur vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 4(4) Nagpur, Nagpur

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 84/NAG/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Sept 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryannuva Infrastructure Pvt. Ito, Ward-4(4), Nagpur. Ltd., Plot No.1249, Near Sindhu Bhawan, Vs. Vaishali Nagar, Nagpur-440017. Pan: Aahca 0371 L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Moriyani, Ld. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr.D.R
Section 131Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

crystal clear that appellant company was given enough opportunity during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the claim that proper 5 opportunity of being heard was not given is not correct. The appellant has cited various case laws upon the issue regarding unexplained cash credit which have been perused and the same

Ravi Jaidev Kukreja, Amravati vs. ITO Ward -3, Amravati

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 344/NAG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryravi Jaidev Kukreja, Ito, Ward-3, Amravati. Ward 57, Kawar Nagar Lane, Saraswati Villa Apartment, Vs. Amravati-444606. Pan: Ajrpk 3352 F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, Ld. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr.D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

u/sec. 148 of the Act on dated 31/01/2022 i.e belated and, thereafter, various statutory notices were issued to the Assessee for giving reasonable opportunity of being heard. However, the Assessee made no compliance and, therefore, the AO presumed that the Assessee has nothing to submit in terms of taxation ... inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 5 8. Thus, the case is accordingly remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh. 9. The Assessee

N R Farms Private Limited, Nagpur vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward - 2(2), Nagpur

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 251/NAG/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Sept 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryn.R. Farms Private Limited, Ito, Ward-2(2), Nagpur. Flat No. 302, Swami Sadan, Vs. Gpo Square, Civil Lines, Nagpur Pan: Aaecn 4552 F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Ld. AdvcoateFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr.D.R
Section 115BSection 148Section 250Section 68

claimed that if there is any adverse view taken against the Assessee, the Assessee may be provided opportunity of being heard to rebut its case and personal hearing through Video Conferencing may kindly be granted in the interest of justice. The Ld. AO by considering the fact that since

Brij Mohan Joshi, Sendhwa vs. Ward Sendhwa, Sendhwa

In the result appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 351/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshibrij Mohan Joshi, Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ 3, Behind Of Goi Wala Ward Sendhwa Vs. Building, Ram Katora Mohalla, Sendhwa

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 44ASection 68

order” which are as under:- “1 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing ex-parte assessment order without allowing a proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard. The time allowed for compliance is also very short. 2.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Arp Securities Limited, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer- 1(1), Indore

ITA 218/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

Arp Securities Limited, Indore vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 150/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 68

action of the Ld. Assessing Officer, who passed an ex-parte order u/s 144 without any merits and without providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts of the case and confirmed the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer

Global Logistics Services, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-4(2), Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are disposed of for statistical purposes only

ITA 840/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. A. K. Jain, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl
Section 144Section 148Section 194CSection 250

filing of duly filed application and documents, if any. The AO is further directed to rehear the matter after giving a proper opportunity of being heard. The assessee is directed to be vigilant enough this time in terms of attending the proceedings before the authority without seeking any adjournment ... duly signed application and the documents, if any. The AO is further directed to rehear the matter after giving a proper opportunity of being heard. The assessee is directed to be vigilant enough this time in terms of attending the proceedings before the authority without seeking any adjournment and file

Shree Narayan Cultural Mission, Vadodara vs. CIT (Exemption), Ahemdabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 667/AHD/2025[N.A]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Sept 2025
Section 80GSection 80G(5)

required details and clarifications within a reasonable time. The CIT(Exemptions) shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court

Jayeshkumar Baldevbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 595/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 250

taken by the appellant. 4.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not granting opportunity of being heard via video conferencing. 4.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that granting opportunity of being heard via video conferencing facility is mandatory ... appeal process. I.T.A No. 595/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2014-15 3 Jayeshkumar Baldevbhai Patel vs. ITO 4.3 The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have granted opportunity of being heard via videoconferencing. It is therefore prayed that the addition made by Ld. AO and upheld by the CIT(A) may please be deleted

Mr. Sirajuddin Abdul Samad Chuadhary, Pune vs. ITO Ward 9(1), Pune

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

ITA 204/PUN/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhorFor Respondent: Ms. Sailee Dhole, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

Tribunal who set aside the order to the file of the Assessing Officer for framing the assessment as per law after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. Subsequently the Assessing Officer issued a notice u/s 142(1) on 16.03.2020 asking the assessee to furnish

Shree Laxmi Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Jalgaon vs. ITO, Ward 1(4), Jalgaon

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

ITA 1122/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Vinay KawadiaFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

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

Dr. Pratap Pandhiranath Patil, Pune vs. PCIT - 2, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

ITA 1026/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Iyer and Shri Siddhant G. BiswasFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

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

Manuraj, Mangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mangalore

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

ITA 1488/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR
Section 144

order of the lower authorities and remit this issue to the file of the AO for denovo consideration after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court

Aneesh Traders, Jvpd Scheme, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Circle 17(1)(1), Mumbai, Kautilya Bhavan

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

ITA 1298/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Aneesh Traders, Ito Circle 17(1)(1), 502/504 Dilrag, Presidency Kautilya Bhavan, Society, Jvpd Scheme, Vs. Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400049. Pan No. Aaafa 1935 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Surendra Mohan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Prateek Jain
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69A

circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard, for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order or otherwise. Aneesh Traders 2. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case

Rajbikram Singh Nayar, Gurugram vs. ITO, Gurugram

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

ITA 3177/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanrajbiram Singh Nayar, Vs. Ito, A 50/4, Iind Floor, Dlf Phase -1, Gurgaon. Gurgaon – 122 002 (Haryana). (Pan : Aohpn3400N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vibhu Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2025 Date Of Order : 23.09.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [For Short ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 14.03.2025 For Assessment Year 2017-18 Affirming The Penalty Order Dated 03.02.2022 Passed U/S 271Aac (1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’). 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar For The Assessee Brought To Our Notice That The Quantum Appeal In The Present Penalty Matter Has Already Been Restored Back To The File Of Ld. Cit (A) By The Coordinated Bench Of The Itat Vide Ita

For Appellant: Shri Vibhu Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 271A

ITAT vide ITA 2 No.5329/Del/2024 order dated 28.04.2025 with a direction to ld. CIT (A) to decide the issues afresh after allowing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, he prayed that the penalty matter may also be restored back to the file ... also requires to be restored to the file of ld. CIT (A) to decide as per law and assessee should be given an opportunity of being heard on merit. We order accordingly and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, the appeal