“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

Badiani Pratap Jethalal(HUF), Jamnagar vs. Income Tax Officer(Assessment Unit), Delhi

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

ITA 443/RJT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Om S. Modi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 147

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 require that the affected 2 ITA No. 443/Rjt/2025 Badlani Pratap Jethalal 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

Shri Ravi Parsotambhai Asanani, Village Jetpur, Dist. Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward 1 (2) (1), Rajkot

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

ITA 434/RJT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainibefore Dr. Arjun Lal Sainibefore Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 434/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2013-14) Ravi Parsotambhai Asnani Income Tax Officer, Nfac, Delhi Income Tax Officer, Nfac, Delhi Prop., Jay Ambe Textile, M.G.Road, Prop., Jay Ambe Textile, M.G.Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Jetpur – 360370 Road, Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Pan/Gir No.: Amnpa7007Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld

Section 147

Considering the above facts, Considering the above facts, I note that assessee has not given sufficient note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before ... 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’s case on merits note that the ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee’s case on merits note that

Kranti Electric Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward 2 (1) (4) Rajkot, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee(ITA No

ITA 411/RJT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Raju Manek, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(C)

merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. 15. 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 case of M/s. National Shroff has already been remitted

Kranti Electric Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward 2 (1) (4) Rajkot, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee(ITA No

ITA 410/RJT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Raju Manek, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(C)

Mohammad Shamim Uddin, Gaya vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Gaya

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

ITA 43/PAT/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: The Learned Cit(A). However, Due To Non-Compliance On Various Dates, The Cit(A) Sustained The Additions By Passing An Ex Parte Order, Sustaining The Order Of The Assessing Officer.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

aside the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication, after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 17.09.2025 (Rakesh Mishra) (Sonjoy

Lakshmi Mandal, Madhubani vs. Income Tax Officer, Madhubani

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

ITA 204/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 43B

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. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 17.09.2025 (Rakesh Mishra

M/S Ravi Surya Dev Infrastructure LLP, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

The appeals are disposed of, for

ITA 964/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 250

appellant has submitted that the matter may be remanded to the Assessing Officer for decision afresh, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard. 8. Ld. DR for the appellant has pointed out that the assessee failed to comply with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer. In the course ... assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20 are restored to the files of the Assessing Officer for decision afresh, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with law. For non compliance with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer, the appellant is burdened with costs

M/S Ravi Surya Dev Infrastructure LLP, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

The appeals are disposed of, for

ITA 963/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 250

Mahesh Chandra Agrawal, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

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

ITA 555/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla, CA (Thru: VC)For Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh,JCIT-DR

Section 131Section 139(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 292CSection 69

course of hearing, even as regard this appeal, ld. AR of the assessee prayed that the assessee may be provided one more opportunity of being heard before the AO and as such restore the matter to the file of the AO for afresh adjudication. To support his submission

Mahesh Chandra Agrawal, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

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

ITA 554/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla, CA (Thru: VC)For Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh,JCIT-DR

Section 131Section 139(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 292CSection 69

Bhikshu Sadhna Kendra Samiti, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

Appeal is disposed of, accordingly, for statistical purposes

ITA 335/JPR/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Sept 2025AY 2024-25

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

For Appellant: ShriTanuj Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT

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

remand the matter to Learned CIT(E) for decision afresh, as regards the said ground i.e. genuineness of activities, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the applicant. 14. As the application u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act was submitted online on 29.06.2024, it appears that after ... decision afresh of the Bhikshu Sadhna Kendra Samiti, Jaipur. application, as regards the issue of genuineness of activities, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the applicant. 16. The impugned order dated 22.12.2024 rejected an application u/s 80G of the Act filed by the applicant. The ground of rejection

Bhikshu Sadhna Kendra Samiti, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

Appeal is disposed of, accordingly, for statistical purposes

ITA 334/JPR/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Sept 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: the competent authority.

For Appellant: ShriTanuj Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT

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

Munjal Auto Industries Limited, Vadodara, Gujarat vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with the direction that the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh in accordance with law

ITA 271/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Munjal Auto Industries Ltd. Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) 187 Gide Estate Vadodara. Waghodia Dist. Vadodara-391 760 Gujarat. Pan: Aaacg 8588 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Ms.Amrin Pathan, Ar Assessee By : Shri Yoeesh Mishra, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/09/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Yoeesh Mishra, Sr.DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234CSection 250Section 251Section 270ASection 80G

Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in passing order without granting reasonable opportunity of being heard. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in passing order without granting opportunity of virtual hearing despite making request ... restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) is directed to grant proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, including opportunity of virtual hearing if so requested, and thereafter pass a reasoned and speaking order dealing with all grounds

Rhv Enterprise Private Limited, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 1441/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tej Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 13ASection 147Section 148Section 29CSection 69CSection 80G

Appeals) shall consider all submissions and evidences placed on record by the assessee and pass a reasoned and speaking order after granting adequate opportunity of being heard. The CIT(Appeals) shall also take into account judicial precedents on the subject (also judicial precedents cited by the Ld. DR before

Rhv Enterprise Private Limited, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 1440/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tej Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 13ASection 147Section 148Section 29CSection 69CSection 80G

Aashna Vikas Trust, Ahmedabad vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1408/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Sept 2025

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR

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

documents to substantiate its claim for registration. The Ld. CIT(E) shall decide the matters afresh in accordance with law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard. 8. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced in the open Court

Aashna Vikas Trust, Ahmedabad vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1407/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Sept 2025

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: (Appellant)

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

Vasavi Naga Rajeshwari Chalamcharla, Raigad vs. ITO Ward 2, Panvel

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

ITA 1269/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.1268 & 1269/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Vasavi Naga Rajeshwari V The Income Tax Officer, Chalamcharla, S. Ward-2, Panvel. F-203, Goodwill Garden Chs, Plot No.16/17, Sector 8, Kharghar, Maharashtra-410210 Pan: Atupc8616P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Hari Krishan Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Respectively For A.Y.2022-23, Both Dated 21.03.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.144 Of The I.T.Act, Dated 14.03.2024 & Penalty Appeal Dated 13.09.2024 Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, These

Section 144Section 250Section 270A

invalid and unsustainable in law, as it has passed in violation of the Principles of natural Justice, without affording adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 2) The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and on the facts & in the circumstances of case ... without discussing each and every ground and merits of the case and merely dismissed for non-compliance. Hence, ld.AR requested for one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Submission of ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) : 3. The ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer

Vasavi Naga Rajeshwari Chalamcharla, Pune vs. ITO Ward 2, Panvel

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

ITA 1268/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Section 144Section 250Section 270A

Marias Institute of Management and Technology, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward 48(1), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 467/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A), Where The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed Due To Non- Compliance On The Various Dates Fixed For Hearing. Ultimately, The Ld. Cit(A) Upheld The Order Of The Ld. Ao By Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee.

Section 147Section 250Section 69

assessee is that the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is an exparte order and assessee could not afford the reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, another chance may be given to the assessee so that the assessee can submit supported documents in order to substantiate its claim ... whole issue to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to re-examine the issue afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, further with a direction to 3 Marias Institute of Management and Technology assessee to comply with the notices issued