“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

Pavan Vitthal Gaikwad, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

ITA 3527/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri. R. A. Dhyani, CIT DRFor Respondent: None

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 263(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(X)Section 56(2)(x)

shall make necessary inquiry and verification in respect of unsecured loan amounting to Rs. 1,68,40,000/-. The AO shall give opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing necessary order.” 5. Being aggrieved the Assessee has now preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The contention

Accenture Solutions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 3457/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am Accenture Solutions Private Limited Pr. Cit, 501, 5Th Floor, Plat 3, Godrej & Boycee Compound, Vikhroli (W), Vikhroli S.O., Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 079 Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Nishant Thakkar Respondent By : Shri Satya Pal Kumar Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey, Vp: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Assailing The Order Dated 20.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-6 (‘Ld. Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. 2. We Have Heard The Parties & Perused The Materials Available On Record. The Short Issue Arising For Consideration Is Whether The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S. 144C(13) Of The Act, Can Be Subjected To Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S. 263 Of The Act. For Deciding This Issue, Few Necessary Facts Are Required To Be Considered. The Assessee Is A Resident Corporate Entity Engaged In The Business Of Providing Information Technology (It)/Information Technology Enabled Service (Ites) To Its Group Companies As Well As Consulting Services To Its Clients. For The Assessment Year Under Dispute, The Assessee Filed

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 263Section 80G

section 144C, the A.O. has to pass the final assessment order in conformity with the directions of ld. DRP without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus, a reading of sub-section 13 of section 144C makes it clear that at the stage of final assessment ... mandate to deviate from the directions of ld. DRP, that is why at that stage, the A.O. is not required to give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5 Accenture Solutions Private Limited vs. Pr. CIT 8. Keeping in view the aforesaid statutory provision, if we look

Roman Catholic Church of St. Paul, Mumbai vs. ITO Exem.Ward 2(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3396/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2023-24 Roman Catholic Church Of St. Income Tax Officer (Exem.), Paul Ward 2(2) St Paul Church, Vs. Dr. Ambedkar Road, Dadar, Mumbai - 400014 (Pan : Aaatr2742L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, CIT DR

Section 10Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(2)(a)Section 115BSection 12ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

deleted. We therefore set aside the order of CIT(Appeals) and remand this issue for fresh consideration by the AO, after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 18 Roman Catholic Church of St. Paul AY 2023-24 13. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Taxation Circle - 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5070/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms. Padmavathy S., Am

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta

Section 133(6)Section 191Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

compute interest u/s. 201(1A) of the Act. 14. However, while undertaking the aforesaid exercise, as directed, the assessee must be provided reasonable opportunity of being heard. With the aforesaid observations, the appeals are disposed of. 15. In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Tax Circle - 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5069/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms. Padmavathy S., Am

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta

Section 133(6)Section 191Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Taxation Circle - 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5068/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms. Padmavathy S., Am

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta

Section 133(6)Section 191Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Taxation Circle - 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5067/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms. Padmavathy S., Am

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta

Section 133(6)Section 191Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Taxation Circle - 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5066/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms. Padmavathy S., Am

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta

Section 133(6)Section 191Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Taxation Circle - 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5065/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms. Padmavathy S., Am

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta

Section 133(6)Section 191Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

Anant Bajaj Trust, Mumbai vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1995/MUM/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2022-23 Anant Bajaj Trust Deputy Director Of Income Tax, 2Nd Floor, Bajaj Bhavan, Bengaluru Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai – 400021 (Pan: Aagta3192B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Ms. Vasanti Patel, Advocate & Shri M. A. Gohel, Ca Revenue : Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel, Advocate and Shri M. A. Gohel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr. DR

Section 111ASection 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

Income u/s. 143(1) of the Act. 1.2 It is submitted that the adjustment has been made without affording to the Appellant any opportunity of being heard and the same is in gross violation of principle of natural justice and also not in accordance with the provisions of Section ... inadvertently overlooked Ground No. 1 raised before it, which pertains to the adjustment of income u/s. 143(1) without providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, we recall the order dated 26/08/2024 passed by the ITAT to adjudicate Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee. The appeal

Ashok Arora, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1) Delhi, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2942/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 2942/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2021-22 Ashok Arora, Vs Income Tax Officer, 281, First Floor, Sector-51, Ward-1(1), Gurgaon, Haryana-122018 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaapa0425F Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.08.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2021-22, Arises Against The Addl./Jcit(A), Kanpur’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1073670355(1) Dated 25.02.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 143(1)

that there was enhancement in the income amounting by Rs.397100.00 and assessing total income at Rs 1188620.00 This was made without providing any opportunity of being heard as it appears that this addition was made by treating the employee as non- government employee although no specific reasons has been informed ... correct proposition as per principal of natural justice it becomes mandatory on the part of assessing officer to provide the opportunity of being heard however 5 Ashok Arora factually employer of the appellant is govt. therefore he is entitle for deduction of Rs 697000.00. 4. Kindly stay the demand

Mohit Satsangi, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-16(1), Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1362/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalmohit Satsangi, Dcit, 24Th Floor, E-2 Block, Circle-16(1), Civic Centre, Jawaharlal Vs. Delhi. Nehru Marg, Delhi-110017. Pan-Awmps2265D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Basant Kumar, Adv. & Ms. Sabhya Saachi Sharma, Ar Department By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2025 O R D E R [ Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Addl./ Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai [Cit(A) In Short], Dated 22.01.2025 In Appeal No. Addl./Jcit-(A) Mumbai- 10036/2022-23 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Short) For Assessment Year 2023-24. 2. At The Outset, It Is Seen That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Filed Delayed By 143 Days Before The Ld. Cit(A), For Which Delay Condonation Petition Was Also Filed, Wherein It Was Stated By The Mohit Satsangi Vs. Acit Assessee That He Had Filed Rectification Applications On Two Occasions Before The Ao For Rectification Of The Order, However, Both These Applications Were Dismissed, Therefore, The Assessee Had With No Other Alternate But To File The Appeal Before Cit(A) & In This Process The Same Was Got Delayed By 143 Days. The Ld. Cit(A) Did Not Find Any Force In The Reasons Given By The Assessee & Not Admitted The Appeal Of The Assessee By Not Condoning The Delay. 3. Before Us, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submits That The Delay Is Bonafide & There Was Reasonable Cause As Assessee Was Exploring The Alternate Remedy & Acted In Terms Of Legal Advice Therefore, The Appeal Was Got Delayed. He Also Placed Reliance On The Following Judgments: -Subhash Malik Vs. Cit 325 Itr 243 (All) -Sps Educational & Welfare Society Versus Dcit-Dpc [2022 (9) Tmi 87-

Section 250

appeal is remand to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal of the assessee on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to file all the submissions and necessary evidences in support of the claim. The appeal of the assessee

Mr Vikas Verma, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-30, Delhi

In the result, the Appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1219/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No. 1218/Del/2025 (A.Y 2019-20) Mr.Vikas Verma Vs Deputy Commissioner Of 101, 1St Floor, Laxmi Income Tax, Tower-Ii,Saraswati Vihar, Central Circle-30 New Delhi-110034 Delhi Pan: Aagpv8856R Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. S. Krishna, Adv, Sh. Harshit Chauhan, Adv Revenue By Sh. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 27/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm:

Section 143(3)Section 153C

Assessee preferred the present Appeal. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not provided sufficient opportunity of being heard to the Assessee and in violation of principals of natural justice, dismissed the appeals of the Assessee. 4. Per contra ... with a direction to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the first Appeals afresh in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. The Assessee is also directed to participate and cooperate in the first appellate proceedings without fail. Mr. Vikas Verma Vs. DCIT

Mr.Vikas Verma, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-30, Delhi

In the result, the Appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1218/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Section 143(3)Section 153C

Mr. Vikas Verma, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-30, Delhi

In the result, the Appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1217/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 153C

S G Joshi (HUF), Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 29(1), Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 1059/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishras. G. Joshi (Huf) Vs. Income Tax Officer, B-4/33, Safdarjung Enclave, Circle 29(1) New Delhi-110029 New Delhi Pan: Aaihs9281F

Section 147Section 249(4)(b)

with a direction to decide the first Appeal on its merit. Needless to say, the Assessee shall be provided with opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 3 S. G. Joshi Vs. ITO 6. In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced

Shri Durgyana Seva Samiti, Hisar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chandigarh

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

ITA 2283/DEL/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalshri Durgyana Seva Samity, Cit(Exemptions), House No.24, Shastri Nagar, Chandigarh. Hisar, Haryana-125001. Vs. Pan:Abdts9074L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ved Jain, Adv., Shri Aman Garg, Ca & Ms. Ishika Dua, Ca Department By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am, This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Chandigarh [Cit(E), In Short] In Din & Notice No. Itba/Exm/F/Exm45/2023-24/1062481243(1) Dt. 12.03.2024 Rejecting The Registration U/S 12A(1)(Ac)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’).

Section 12A(1)(ac)

filed all the evidences as sought by ld. CIT(E) who failed to appreciate the same. We are of the view that proper opportunity of being heard was not provided to the assessee and hence, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of CIT(E) and remit

Surya Roshni Limited, New Delhi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 7, New Delhi

ITA 1444/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)

ITA Nos.1445 & 1444/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “G” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Vipin Kapur, New Delhi

ITA 3788/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Monika Singh, CIT-DR

Section 144Section 153DSection 254(1)

forth in the memorandum of appeal or taken by leave of the Tribunal provided the party who may be affected thereby had sufficient opportunity of being heard on that ground. In taking this view, we are conscious about the observations of the Madras High Court and the Calcutta High Court

Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Sakariya, Rajkot vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 318/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.318/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2016-17 Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Sakariya The Pr.Commissioner Of बनाम At Khajuri Gundala Income Tax-1, Rajkot. Post Station: Vavdi Vs. Amarnagar, Khajuri Gundala. Pan : Aslps 7027 E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Singhal, Ld.Ar राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Singhal, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 263

facts as also in law in passing order u/s. 263 of the Act, against the principles of natural justice, without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard. (iii)The Id. PCIT erred on facts as also in law in passing order u/s. 263 of the Act, without considering the submission dated