“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

Ashok Hirpara, Deputy Commiossioner of Incometax, Jamnagar vs. Sanjay Gulabrai Kundalia, Jamnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 66/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.66/Rjt/2025 & C.O. No. 10/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Sanjay Gulabrai Kundalia बनाम Tax, Jamnagar Khambhaliya Circle-1, Vs. Highway, Sikkarpatiya, Jamnagar Sikka, Jamnagar Pan: Acypk3888Q Sanjay Gulabrai Kundalia Jamnagar Khambhaliya Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Highway, Sikkarpatiya, Circle-1, Jamnagar Sikka, Jamnagar Pan: Acypk3888Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant/Respondent) : (""यथ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri K.D. Sheth, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 30/06/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18/09/2025 Order Per: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17, Are Directed Against The Common Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac’], Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), Dated 10.12.2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Dcit Vs.Sanjay Gulabrai Kundalia

For Appellant: Shri K.D. Sheth, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250

material evidence to prove that the expenditure amounting to Rs. 2,30,31,923/- was genuinely incurred for business purposes despite providing adequate opportunity of being heard. (3) The Ld. CIT(A) has eared in law and on facts in not appreciating the fact that the assessing officer during

Shri Subhas Hansaraj Nandu, Bhachau-Kutch vs. The ACIT, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhidham-Kutch

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

ITA 10/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 10/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Subhas Hansaraj Nandu, V Acit, Gandhidham Opp. Shambhu Maharaj Circle, S Bunglow, Kutch . Bhachau, Gujarat – 370140 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afrpn0720J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 41(1)

same and wrongly made addition of Rs. Subhas H. Nandu 69,20,103/- on account of bogus and unexplained creditors without providing proper opportunity of being heard. During the year under consideration, the assessee has debited interest expense of Rs. 60.78,010/-. The assessee has duly submitted the details called

Amar Jyoti Industries Pvt. Ltd, Patna vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2 (1), Patna

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

ITA 320/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: The Learned Cit(A). However, Due To Non-Prosecution, The Appeal Was Dismissed Ex Parte, Thereby Sustaining The Assessment Order.

Section 143(3)Section 250

matter to the file of AO with a direction to decide the issues involved in the appeal afresh on merits, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to 3 Amar Jyoti Industries Pvt. Ltd. cooperate in the remand proceedings and file necessary

Sharwan Kumar Daruka, Amarpur, Banka vs. CIT(A), Patna

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

ITA 253/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the learned CIT(A). However, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to non-prosecution, thereby sustaining the order of the Assessing Officer. 5. The assessee has now preferred appeal before this Tribunal, raising multiple grounds. The primary contention is that the order of the learned CIT(A) is ex parte and passed without adjudicating the issues on merits. Therefore, another opportunity should be given to the assessee to substantiate his claim. 6. On the other hand, the learned DR su

Section 144Section 153C

learned CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file with a direction to decide the appeal afresh on merits, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to appear and cooperate in the appellate proceedings. 9. In the result, both the appeals

Sharwan Kumar Daruka, Amarpur, Banka vs. CIT(A), Patna

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

ITA 252/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Section 144Section 153C

Ganesh Kumar Khemka, Patna vs. ACIT, Circle-4, Patna

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

ITA 246/PAT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition Along With An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For The Delay. After Considering The Petition & The Submissions Made, We Are Satisfied That There Was Sufficient Cause For The Delay. Accordingly, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

Section 144BSection 147Section 250

learned CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file with a direction to adjudicate the appeal afresh on merits, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate and attend the proceedings as and when called. 7. In the result

Sharma Nand Singh, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 6 94), Patna

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

ITA 244/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Supported By An Affidavit, Explaining The Reasons For The Delay. After Considering The Submissions & Going Through The Petition, We Are Satisfied That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause In Filing The 2 Sharma Nand Singh Appeal Within The Prescribed Time. Accordingly, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

learned CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication of the issues raised, on merits, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to 3 Sharma Nand Singh the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate and comply with the notices issued by the learned

Rajesh Kumar, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 3 (2), Gaya

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

ITA 171/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 147Section 234ASection 250Section 271FSection 69A

considered that the request of the assessee to set aside the case before the Ld. AO may be allowed so that a proper opportunity of being heard may be provided. Hence, after examining the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order ... matter back to the Ld. AO for making the reassessment de novo. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission it wants to make in support of its grounds of appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. Accordingly

Vijay Laxmanrao Peshane, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 4(5), Nagpur

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

ITA 58/NAG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryvijay Laxmanrao Peshane, Ito, Ward-4(5), Nagpur 1, Gdikhana, Mahal, Nagpur Vs. Pan: Awmpp 5763 F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Milind Bhusari, Ld. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

would be proper to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld.Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. The Assessee is also directed to comply with the notices and file the relevant submissions/documents, which would be essentially required

Rupa Abhay Vyas, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 5(3), Nagpur

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

ITA 366/NAG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Jain, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250

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. 6. Thus the case is remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh accordingly. 7. The Assessee

Anuradha Pravin Pote, Amravati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, Amrawati

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

ITA 350/NAG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryanuradha Pravin Pote, Ito, Ward-5, Amravati. Rathi Nagar, Amravati-444603. Vs. Pan: Aatpp 8804 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Shikha P. Loya, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr.D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

manner. Thus, the case is remanded to the file of the Ld. AO for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. The Assessee is also directed to file relevant submissions/documents before the Ld. AO. It is clarified that in case

Ramkrushna Narayan Kanzode, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 4(5), Nagpur

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

ITA 271/NAG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2015-16 Mr. Ramkrushna Narayan Income Tax Officer Kanzode, Ward 4(5) Nagpur Plot No 95, Near Jyoti Kirana, Bsnl Building Seminary Vs. Sham Nagar, Hills, Hudkeshwar Road, Nagpur-440001. Nagpur-440024. Pan: Dpbpk6038B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Kumar, Ld. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.02.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2015-16. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Vide Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2018 U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153C Of The Act, Made An Addition Of Rs.34,77,643/- Being Disallowance On Account Of Long Term Capital Gain.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, Ld. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250

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. 3 M/s. Ramkrushna Narayan Kanzode 5. Thus the case is remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh

Chandrakant Gajanan Paradhi, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward-3(4), Nagpur

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

ITA 25/NAG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrychandrakant Gajanan Ito, Ward-3(4), Nagpur Paradhi, Plot No. 67, Saiecchasadan, Umred Road, Vs. Bahadura, Old Town, Nagpur Pan: Batpp 5726 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Bahri, Ld. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 250Section 50C

file of the Ld.Commissioner for decision on the issues involved in the relevant assessment order, suffice to say by providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. The Assessee is also directed to comply with the notices and file the relevant submissions/documents which would be essentially required. In case

Pratik Yogesh Jaiswal, Yavatmal vs. ITO Ward -1, Yavatmal

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

ITA 169/NAG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrypratik Yogesh Jaiswal, Ito, Ward-1, Yavatmal. Chhoti Gujri Road, Itwara Vs. Chowk, Yavatmal-445001. Pan: Asrpj 7342 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Gandhi, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250

decision afresh by considering the documents referred to above filed before this Court, suffice to say by affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. The Assessee is also directed to file relevant submissions/documents before the Ld. Ld. AO as filed before this Court. It is clarified that

The Payakaraopeta Womens Mutually Aided Co Op Thrift Credit Society Limited, Payakaraopeta vs. ACIT, Circle-5(1), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 371/VIZ/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: the Tribunal. In respect of belated filing of the appeal, the Ld. Authorized Representative filed a petition along with an affidavit stating that due to inadvertent oversight in tracking the date, the appeal before the Tribunal was filed belatedly on 02nd June, 2025 instead of 31st May, 2025 resulting in a delay of 02 days. It was further submitted that the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate but solely due to human error and therefore pleaded that the delay of 02 days may be condon

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 80P

remitted the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal afresh after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Adhering to the directions of the Hon’ble Tribunal, the Ld. CIT(A) issued notices

Dabrela Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Limited, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Ajmer

ITA 924/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Porwal, C.A. (through V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

response thereto. 5 Dabrela Dugdh UtpadakSahkari Samiti Ltd., Ajmer. 14. As noticed above, Ld. AR for the appellant has requested for another opportunity of being heard before the Assessing Officer so that the assessee is able to substantiate its claim, as regards, nature of source of cash deposit ... filler has been filed. But, having regard to the issues involved, we deem it a fit case, where the assessee be granted another opportunity of being heard. 16. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, and having regard to the issues involved, this appeal is disposed

Mo. Shariph Kureshi, Sikar vs. ITO Ward-4 Sikar, Sikar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 366/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

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

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

well as on facts of the case in passing the ex-parte order in gross breach of law, without providing adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard. Hence the addition so made may kindly be deleted in full. 2. The ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well

Tinich Sahkari Ganna Samiti Limited, Bastii vs. ITO, Basti

ITA 295/LKW/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma and Shri Amit Kumar, D.Rs

Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

without issuing any show cause notice u/s 251(2) in respect of this proposed enhancement and also without giving opportunity of being heard against it before making enhancement in its final order. 2. Because the grounds taken by the Id. CIT (A) for reversal of the allowance of expenses ... documents, as filed before Hon'ble Supreme Court, will adjudicate the issue afresh. Needless to say that the assessees will be provided sufficient opportunity of being heard.” 14. Subsequent on the said remand, the matter was examined by the Revenue and after consideration of the decision

Tinich Sahkari Ganna Samiti Limited, Basti vs. ITO, Basti

ITA 294/LKW/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma and Shri Amit Kumar, D.Rs

Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Nikulbhai Chaturbhai Patel, HUF, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-4(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 47/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR & Shri HargovindFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR & Shri Hargovind

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69

income tax act, 1961 passed by Ld. CIT(A) is without considering facts of Appellant's case and without giving any opportunity of being heard. This constitutes a material procedural irregularity and renders the order bad in law and void. 3. In law and in the facts and circumstances ... income tax act, 1961 passed by Ld. CIT(A) is without considering facts of Appellant's case and without giving any opportunity of being heard. This constitutes a material procedural irregularity and renders the order bad in law and void. 3. In law and in the facts and circumstances