← 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

DCIT, Circle- 23(2), New Delhi vs. Skyline Engineering Contracts (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5823/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Atul Puri, CAFor Respondent: Ms Rajinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 282

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH

Skyline Engineering Contracts (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 24(2), New Delhi

ITA 5485/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Atul Puri, CAFor Respondent: Ms Rajinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 282

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH

Skyline Engineering Contracts (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 3382/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Atul Puri, CAFor Respondent: Ms Rajinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 282

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH

Wns Business Consulting Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3353/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: S/Shri Tarandeep Singh & SandeepFor Respondent: Shri Bhopal Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 250(6)Section 92C(3)Section 92C(4)

thereby making the entire process of referring the matter to the learned TPO as invalid. 4. The learned AO failed to grant an opportunity of being heard to the Appellant at the time when the reference was made to the learned TPO. Your Appellant prays that the reference

Shri Gajender Singh Drall, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 4877/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

refunded through banking channels to the persons from whom advance has been received. 4. That no fair, proper and meaningful opportunity of being heard was provided to the appellant as such, addition made and sustained by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in violation of the principles of natural justice

Mohammad Asif Raza, Jugsalai vs. ITO, C.H.Area

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 151/RAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi16 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Mohammad Asif Raza, I.T.O., Hussini Line Near Smart Tailer, Purani Ward 1(1), Vs. Basti Road, Jugsalai, Jamshedpur. Jamshedpur-831006 Pan No. Bqwpr 9615 M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

deciding the appeal afresh in accordance with law. Needless to direct that before passing the order, the ld. CIT(A) shall grant reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to avail this opportunity and not to cause further delay and seek adjournment without

Vikash Kumar Tapadia, Jamshedpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jamshedpur

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 235/RAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi16 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.235/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vikash Kumar Tapadia….........................…...........................……….……Appellant Tapadia Compound, Chowk Bazar, Jugsalai (Jharkhand)-831006.. [Pan: Acnpt2711L] Vs. Ito, Jamshedpur……………………………….……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 16, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Arises From Order Dated 03.02.2024, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereafter "The Act") By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [Hereinafter "The Ld. Cit(A)]. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In The Case Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2018-19, The Assessing Officer Noticed That The Assessee Was Involved In Certain Financial Transaction. However, Assessee Has Not Disclosed The Same In The Return Of Income For The Relevant Year. In View Of The Above Fact After Giving Opportunity As Per Section 148A & Obtaining Approval From The Competent Authority Or U/S 148A(D) Of The Act Was Passed On 30.03.2022. Accordingly, Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Requesting The Assessee To File Return Of Income. However, In Compliance To The Notice, The Assessee Did Not Respond & The Ao View That Unexplained Loan U/S 68 Of The Act Of Rs. 9,00,000/- Unexplained Money U/S 69C Of The Act, Rs. 60,44,241/- & Capital Gains Of Rs. 30,54,000/-

Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

matter may be remand back to the file of Ld. AO with a direction to re-examine the issue afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to comply to the notices issued by the Ld. AO as and when fixed

Ralom Borang, Busihi Yada Motors, A Sector vs. Assistant Commissioner of Incomea Tax, Aaykar Bhawan Gs Road

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

ITA 7/GTY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati16 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 10(26)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194JSection 250Section 26Section 69A

aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the appeal to him to be decided afresh, who shall allow an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and also grant an opportunity of representing the case and be heard to the Ld. AO as per rule

Tridev Ispat Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 427/RPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Subash Agarwal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 10A(3)Section 132Section 153ASection 246ASection 250Section 251Section 270ASection 271ASection 274Section 40A(3)

create a paper trail to showcase compliance of principle of natural justice. 13. It shall be worthy to underline that the opportunity of being heard should be real, reasonable and effective and the same should not be empty or paper formalities, it should not be a paper opportunity

Tridev Ispat Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle (2), Raipur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 426/RPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Subash Agarwal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 10A(3)Section 132Section 153ASection 246ASection 250Section 251Section 270ASection 271ASection 274Section 40A(3)

create a paper trail to showcase compliance of principle of natural justice. 13. It shall be worthy to underline that the opportunity of being heard should be real, reasonable and effective and the same should not be empty or paper formalities, it should not be a paper opportunity

Prataprai Ranpariya, Jamnagar vs. The ITO Ward 1(2), Jamnagar

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

ITA 523/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainibefore Dr. Arjun Lal Sainibefore Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 523/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2019-20) Prataprai Ranpariya The Ito, Wd – 1(2), Haweli Street, Darbargadh Dhrol, Haweli Street, Darbargadh Dhrol, Vs. Taranjali Building, Pandit Nehru Taranjali Building, Pandit Nehru Jamnagar – 361210 Marg, Jamnagar - 361001 361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Pan/Gir No.: Binpr9165B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Davina Patel, 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 he ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee’s case on merits

Maruti Enterprises, Vaishali vs. Dy. CIT, Cir-1, Patna

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

ITA 299/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2018-19 Maruti Enterprises, Gudari Road, Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Patna Hajipur, Vaishali, Bihar Pan/Gir No. Aalfm 0891 Q (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Rastogi, Adv Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kr Singhal, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 28/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/09 /2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr Singhal, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

adjudication afresh with a direction P a g e 3 | 4 Assessment Year : 2015-16 to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, we also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the AO failing which

K B S Enteprises, Jaipur vs. ACIT(Circle-6), Jaipur

Appeal is dismissed while upholding the addition/disallowance made by holding that net profit @

ITA 725/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Filing Of This Appeal, Was In Appeal Before Learned Cit(A), Nfac, Feeling Dissatisfied With The Assessment Order Dated 16.12.2019, Relating To The Assessment Year 2017-18, Whereby Following Disallowances & Additions Were Made, In Computing Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs. 3,23,55,510/-:- “6. Subject To Above Remarks, Total Income Of The Assessee Is Computed As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Khandelwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 40Section 68

event of failure on your part to furnished details/documents/clarification, the case will be completed u/s 144 of the without affording any further opportunity of being heard.” 10. Ultimately, the Assessing Officer issued another notice u/s 142(1) of the calling upon to the assessee, to furnish details to substantiate ... decide the issue of addition pertaining to the unexplained unsecured loans, in accordance with law, and after providing another reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee firm. Of course, Learned CIT(A) shall be at liberty to call for remand report from the Assessing Officer, if so desired

Murli Dhar Upadhyay, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(3), Jpr, Jaipur

In the result, stands allowed

ITA 252/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT a
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270A(1)Section 40A(3)

modify the assessment from the return. In this case the Ld. AO violated the principle of natural justice by not providing the opportunity of being heard to the assessee and ignored the trite law that unless a statutory provision either specifically ignores or by necessary implication excludes the application ... application of principles of natural justice, because in that event the Court would not ignore the legislative mandate, the requirement of giving reasonable opportunity of being heard before an order is made, is generally read into the provisions of a statute, particularly when the order has adverse civil consequences

National Power Training Institute, Faridabad, Haryana vs. DCIT/ACIT(E)(C-2) Chandigarh, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 516/CHANDI/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Sept 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 515 & 516/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2024-25 बनाम National Power Training Institute, The Dcit/Acit(E), Npti Complex, Sector 33, Circle-2, Vs Amarnagar, Faridabad. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aacan2698A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By :Shri Ayush Garg, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr For Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit, Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2025 Virtual Hearing आदेश/Order Per Bench These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) [In Short ‘The Cit (E)’] Dated 09.07.2024 Passed For Assessment Year 2024- 25. 2. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Filed An Application Seeking Permission To Withdraw The Aforementioned Appeals. The Contents Of The Application Are As Under :

For Appellant: Shri Ayush Garg, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR for Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 12A

vide order dated 21.09.2023. On appeal, this Hon'ble Tribunal vide order dated 27.09.2024 directed the ld. CIT(E)to afford reasonable opportunity of being heard and decided the matter on merits. Pursuant to the said direction, the ld. CIT(E) has granted registration u/s 12A to the assessee trust

Anmol Medicare Limited, Ahmedabad vs. ACIT Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 504/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalanmol Medicare Limited, Acit, Vs. 2Nd Floor, Nbcc House, Circle 1(1)(1), Ambawadi, Ahmedabad-38006 Ahmedabad [Pan : Aafca 1055 R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Divyang Shah, Ar Respondent By: Shri Rajenkumar M. Vasavda, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 12.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.09.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

For Appellant: Shri Divyang Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M. Vasavda, Sr DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 40Section 43BSection 68

restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeal afresh on merits, after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall comply with notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A), without seeking unnecessary adjournments. 7. In the result

Prayatna Charitable Trust, Ahmedabad vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 374/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Sept 2025

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri D.K. Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT- DR
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

fresh speaking order in accordance with law after considering all relevant facts, submissions, and legal principles. The assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before finalizing the proceedings. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced in Open

Mohammed Farooq, Hassan vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Hassan

ITA 847/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 10tSection 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 234Section 246A(1)(a)Section 250Section 69A

humble request that your honour may be pleased to condone the delay and admit the appeal and favor me with an opportunity of being heard at the earliest. Thanking You, Yours faithfully, (MOHAMMED FAROOQ) Digitally signed by MOHAMMED FAROOQ Date: 2022.03.24 14:07:08 +05'30' Mohammed Farook M. Faroog

Shobha Sundar Babu, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 493/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate –Standing
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 250

facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The orders of the lower authorities are passed in haste, without providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity of being heard. 3. The orders of the lower authorities are passed against the principles of natural justice and are liable to be quashed. Shobha Sundar Babu ... file of AO to examine & consider these additional evidences produced before us & decide in accordance with law. Needless to say, a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. It is ordered accordingly. 10. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

Anjuman E Hyderia Asna Ashari Kashmiri Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT(Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 4776/MUM/2025[n.a ]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R Singh & Shri S.A.KanjiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (CIT-DR)
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

further directed to decide the issue of condonation of delay in a lenient manner, after granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.4776/Mum/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 16th