← 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

Satpal Yadav, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-4, Jaipur

ITA 1069/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sh. R.S. Poonia, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 147Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 272A

given situation the impugned orders be set aside and the matters be remanded to the Assessing Officer for decision afresh, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in all the matters. 7. Ld. DR for the department has submitted list of notices sent by the Assessing Officer ... issues involved, we also deem it just that all these matters are remitted to the Assessing Officer for decision afresh, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Result 13. In view of the above discussion and findings, all the appeals are disposed of, for statistical purpose

Satpal Yadav, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle -1, Jaipur

ITA 1068/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. R.S. Poonia, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 147Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 272A

given situation the impugned orders be set aside and the matters be remanded to the Assessing Officer for decision afresh, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in all the matters. 7. Ld. DR for the department has submitted list of notices sent by the Assessing Officer ... issues involved, we also deem it just that all these matters are remitted to the Assessing Officer for decision afresh, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Result 13. In view of the above discussion and findings, all the appeals are disposed of, for statistical purpose

Satpal Yadav, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle -1, Jaipur

ITA 1067/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. R.S. Poonia, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 147Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 272A

given situation the impugned orders be set aside and the matters be remanded to the Assessing Officer for decision afresh, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in all the matters. 7. Ld. DR for the department has submitted list of notices sent by the Assessing Officer ... issues involved, we also deem it just that all these matters are remitted to the Assessing Officer for decision afresh, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Result 13. In view of the above discussion and findings, all the appeals are disposed of, for statistical purpose

Satpal Yadav, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle -1, Jaipur

ITA 1066/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. R.S. Poonia, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 147Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 272A

given situation the impugned orders be set aside and the matters be remanded to the Assessing Officer for decision afresh, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in all the matters. 7. Ld. DR for the department has submitted list of notices sent by the Assessing Officer ... issues involved, we also deem it just that all these matters are remitted to the Assessing Officer for decision afresh, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Result 13. In view of the above discussion and findings, all the appeals are disposed of, for statistical purpose

Satpal Yadav, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle - 1, Jaipur

ITA 1065/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Sh. R.S. Poonia, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 147Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 272A

given situation the impugned orders be set aside and the matters be remanded to the Assessing Officer for decision afresh, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in all the matters. 7. Ld. DR for the department has submitted list of notices sent by the Assessing Officer ... issues involved, we also deem it just that all these matters are remitted to the Assessing Officer for decision afresh, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Result 13. In view of the above discussion and findings, all the appeals are disposed of, for statistical purpose

Positive Yuva Network Association, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

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

ITA 1000/JPR/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 80G

course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee in the above appeals mainly submitted that the assessee was not provided adequate opportunity of being heard by the ld. CIT(E) and thus the asssessee should be provided one more opportunity to contest the case before

Tejashree Atul Patil, Pune vs. Pr.CIT - 2, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 927/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri C.V.DeshpandeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54F

appear to be eligible to claim exemption u/s 54F for the second house property purchased on 24.05.2015 3. In this regard, an opportunity of being heard s being provided to you on 01.03.2024 at 03.00 PM. You are requested to make your submissions along with documentary evidences in support ... 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

Cian Agro Industries & Infrastructure Limited, Nagpur vs. ACIT (It) Circle 1, Pune

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

ITA 676/PUN/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh P Shah (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 133(6)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

file to adjudicate the issue afresh by passing a speaking order on merits as per fact and law after allowing one final opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall provide the requisite support in terms of submitting the relevant documents/evidence as may be required/called upon

Nahid Khatoon, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-14(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1135/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Vinod, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to grant one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the appellate proceedings and not to seek unnecessary adjournments

Jai Matadi Enterprise, Murshidabad vs. ITO, Ward 42(1), Murshidabad

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

ITA 1356/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Sept 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

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

appeal taken by the assessee on merit by passing a speaking order. 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 and rule ... Rules, 1962 shall also be followed and an opportunity of being heard may be provided to the Ld. AO, if required. Accordingly, the grounds taken by the assessee in his appeal are allowed for statistical purposes. I.T.A. No.: 1356/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Jai Matadi Enterprise. 9. In the result

Chanda Shrawan Khetawat, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 28(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1159/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Sept 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishravs Ito, Ward-28(1), Kolkata Chanda Shrawan Khetawat, 4F, Floor Castle, 74 Lake District Narkel Danga Main Road, Phoolbagan, Kolkata-700054 Pan No. :Agxpk 6023 E (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Abhishek Bansal, Fca रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. Archana Gupta, Addl.Cit-Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 30.03.2025 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2. Shri Abhishek Bansal, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Ms. Archana Gupta, Sr.Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue 3. An Adjournment Application Has Been Filed By Shri Abhishek Bansal, Ld.Ar Of The Assessee Seeking Adjournment On The Ground, Which Is Not Plausible, Therefore, The Adjournment Application Is Rejected & Appeal Is Heard Finally. 4. A Perusal Of The Facts Of The Present Shows That The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A) Is An Ex-Parte Order. Ld. Ar Submitted That The Issues Involved In The Appeal Of The Assessee May Be Restored To The File Of Ld.Cit(A) As The Relevant Documents Are Required To Be Examined, However, The Ld.Ar Has 2

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Bansal, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Archana Gupta, Addl.CIT-Sr. DR

restoring the issues in the appeal to the file of ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating afresh after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee shall cooperate in the readjudication proceeding before the ld.CIT(A) positively. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Sabita Rudra, North Twenty Four Parganas vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 50(1)Kolkata, Kolkata

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

ITA 363/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Alok Ghosh & Arka Ghosh, ARsFor Respondent: Kapil Mandal, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 811

Assessing Officer, after taking into account all relevant material which the Assessing Officer has gathered, shall, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard, make the assessment of the total income or loss to the best of his judgment and determine the sum payable by the assessee ... that the request of the assessee to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) 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

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Kolkata vs. Avinash Commercial Private Limited, Kolkata

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

ITA 1603/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 250Section 69

aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit 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

Late Radhakrishnan, L/R Smt. R.Sarguna, Vellore vs. ITO, Ncw-11(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1687/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1687/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Kannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 115BSection 250Section 69

without calling for the same 5. The Learned CIT(A) has violated the principles of natural justice by not giving the Assessee an opportunity of being heard through a personal hearing. 6 Any other ground that may be taken at the time of hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case

Naseem Ahmed, Greater Noida vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Noida

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 658/DEL/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmanaseem Ahmed, Income Tax Officer, Vill: Haldouni, Post Kuleshra, Ward-2(3), Greater Noida,Gautambudh Vs. Noida Nagar, U.P.201306. Pan-Aijpa1555F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Raghu Raj Singh, Adv. & Shri Vijay Singhla, Ca. Department By Shridheeraj Kumar Jain,Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15/07/2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.12.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Arising Out Of Order Dated 09.12.2019 Made By Assessing Officer(Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Ao’) U/S 144 R.W.S 147Of The Act For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Filed His Return Of Income Of Rs.2,35,000/- & Had Also Claimed Credit For Tds Of Rs.9,13,823/- The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Issuing Of Notice 148 Of The Act On The Basis Of Information In Possession Of The Department That The Assessee Had Received Interest On Enhanced Compensation Of Rs.8,84,023/- From New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) During The Financial Year 2015-16, Relevant To Assessment Year 2016-17 On Which Tds Of Rs.8,84,023/- Was Deducted By The Authority. The Assessee Had Filed Return But Assessing Officer Was Of The View That The Amount Of Rs.88,40,230/- Was In The Nature Of Interest

Section 10(37)Section 144Section 145BSection 250Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

Products Ltd. (1973)88 ITR 192 (SC). Accordingly, we restore this issue to the file of Ld. CIT(A) who shall after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee decide the issue afresh in the light of the aforesaid observations. 5. Further, we find that assessee had deposited Rs.28

Virendra M Gaidhane, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ground no-1 is allowed

ITA 64/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi a/w Ms. Aadnya BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

receipt of the directions of the DRP, the Ld. AO shall in conformity with the directions complete the assessment without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee within one month from the end of the month in which such direction is received. Respectfully reliance is placed

Khimjim Poonja Global Logistics, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Bandra

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3679/MUM/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar & Khimji Poonja Global V/S. Income Tax Officer, Logistics, 9, Sugar Market, बनाम Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Pd Mello Road, Carnac Kurla Complex, Bandra Bunder, Mumbai - 400 009, (East), Mumbai – 400052, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aanfk7994A Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Anand Naik,ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 37B

3679/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2021-22 &2022-23 Khimji Poonja Global Logistics Mumbai orders and the assessee was not provided adequate opportunity of being heard, it may be provided one more opportunity to advance its arguments/submissions before the lower authorities so as to provide details in connection with the merits

Khimji Poonja Global Logistics, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3668/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar & Khimji Poonja Global V/S. Income Tax Officer, Logistics, 9, Sugar Market, बनाम Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Pd Mello Road, Carnac Kurla Complex, Bandra Bunder, Mumbai - 400 009, (East), Mumbai – 400052, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aanfk7994A Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Anand Naik,ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 37B

3679/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2021-22 &2022-23 Khimji Poonja Global Logistics Mumbai orders and the assessee was not provided adequate opportunity of being heard, it may be provided one more opportunity to advance its arguments/submissions before the lower authorities so as to provide details in connection with the merits

Ganesh Polychem Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-3(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2145/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Parekh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250

ordinate Bench. Accordingly we remit the issue back to the AO with similar directions. Needless to say that the assessee be given an opportunity of being heard. 7. In result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court

Juzer Saifuddin Boriyawala, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, 24(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1543/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma (virtually appeared)For Respondent: Shri Kavitha Kaushik (SR DR)
Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 163Section 250

file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate grounds Nos. 1 to 4 afresh, after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Ld. CIT(A) shall also take into 4 Juzer Saifuddin Boriyawala account the evidence or documents that the assessee may place