“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

Khemani Tea Company Private Limited, Mancotta Road, Chowkidinghee, Dibrugarh vs. ACIT/Cir-1/Dib, Milan Nagar, Dibrugarh

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

ITA 238/GTY/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati26 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm Khemani Tea Company Private Acit/Cir-1/Dib Limited Milan Nagar, Dibrugarh, Mancotta Road, Chowkidinghee, Vs. Assam, Pin-786001 Dibrugarh, Assam-786001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacck6872F Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Kausik Ray, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.08.2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray, DR

Section 144

ends of justice, we remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT (A) with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass the order accordingly . In the same breath, we also hereby direct the assessee to co-operate in the proceedings

Ramappa Lachappa Siddapur, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Gokak

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

ITA 216/PAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji26 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos. 216/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18) Ramappa Lachappa Siddapur, Vs I T O Ward(1), Dr Siddapur R L , B A -3, The Dr Ghogeri Building, . One Lotus County Apartment, Belgaum Road, Mandoli Road, Gokak-591307, Tilakwadi, Belagavi-590006, Karnataka. Karnataka. Pan .No. Apxps8802C (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 144Section 147

restore the disputed issue to the file of the CIT(A) for afresh adjudication on merits and the CIT(A) shall provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and 4 ITA. No. 216/PAN 2025. Ramappa Lachappa Sidapur. the assessee should also cooperate in submitting the information for early

Shri Narendra Kumar Bhojwani, Bhatapara vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhatapara

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

ITA 488/RPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.488/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 Narendra Kumar Bhojwani C/O. Bhojwani Medical Stores, Hatri Bazar, Sadar Ward, Bhatapara-493 118 (C.G.) Pan: Adepb7523J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Bhatapara (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Birendra Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 5

matter came up before the ITAT, it had failed to address the infirmity regarding the fact that the assessee was not afforded proper opportunity of being heard and the matter was dismissed ex- parte by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC which amounted to violation of principles of natural justice ... part of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In light of such decision, the petitioner ought to have been granted an opportunity of being heard which, partakes the characteristic of the fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 11. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay

Incometax Officer, Tanuku vs. Venkata Surya Durga Raju Koppisetti, Thimmarajupalem

ITA 330/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: us :

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri MN Murthy Naik

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

speaking and reasoned order. Needless to say, the CIT(A) shall, in the course of the set-aside proceedings, afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 15. Before parting, we herein deprecate the manner in which the present appeal had been disposed

Incometax Officer, Tanuku vs. Venkata Surya Durga Raju Koppisetti, Thimmarajupalem

ITA 329/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: us : “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) is erroneous both on facts and in law.

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri MN Murthy Naik

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

Ganesh Kumar Paidi, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Vijayawada

Appeal is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 135/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250

from the AO. The AO vide letter dated 18.10.2023 submitted the remand report. the AO stated the following: The assessee has been given opportunity of being heard and to submit information on or before 11.10.2023 through online, for which the 9 Ganesh Kumar Paidi assessee has not submitted any information ... availed the opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the request of the assessee for submission of additional grounds may not be considered. The remand report was forwarded to the assessee requesting to file a rejoinder. However, the assessee has not responded till date. 6.0 The assessee contended that he had only

Karada Kala Sahithya Prathistana Gurudhama, Enmakaje vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Kochi

In the result, appeal filed by the appellant stands partly allowed

ITA 579/COCH/2025[2025-2026]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Aug 2025AY 2025-2026

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am& Shri Rahul Chaudharykarada Kala Sahithya .......... Appellant Prathistanagurudhama, Enmakaje, Perla P.O., Kasaragod, Kerala-671552 [Pan: Aadtk 8826 B] Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption) .......... Respondent Kochi. Appellant By: None Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.08.2025 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee-Trust Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Kochi [For Short, ‘Cit(E)’] Dated 24.06.2025 Rejecting The Application Filed In Form No. 10Ab For Grant Of Registration U/S.12A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, 'The Act'). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Appellant Is A Trust Duly Registered With The Objects Of Charitable Purpose. The Appellant Was Granted Temporary Registration Under Section 12Ab Of The Act

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR

Section 12A

application in accordance with law after dealing with the petition for condonation of delay in filing the application and after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 4. In the result, appeal filed by the appellant stands partly allowed. Order pronounced in open Court on 26th August

Beena Veeriah Reddy, Kottayam vs. DCIT, Circle-1 & Tps, Kottayam

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

ITA 578/COCH/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Aug 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am& Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year: 2020-21 Beenaveeriah Reddy, .......... Appellant M/S. Seematti, K.K. Road, Kottayam, Kerala-686001 [Pan: Abopt 2020 Q] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Circle-1 & Tps, Kottayam. Appellant By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.08.2025 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax/Nfac, Delhi[For Short, ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 19.06.2025 U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, 'The Act') For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Appellant Is An Individual, Engaged In The Business Of Retail Garments. The Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2020-21 Was Filed On 15/02/2021 Declaring Income Of Rs. 39,10,54,160/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The National Faceless Centre Vide Order Dated

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250

Accordingly, the matter is restored to the file of AO for fresh assessment in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open Court on 26th

Phos Infrastructure and Power Solution Private Limited, Kozhikode vs. ITO, Circle-1(1) & Tps, Kozhikode

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay application is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 447/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Ms. Shreya S Samuel, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 144

order as well as the order of the Ld.CIT(A) are ex-parte and therefore the assessee has not been provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard and prayed that one more opportunity may be granted to putforth their case before the AO. The Ld.AR further submitted that

Dharmendra Kumar, Khandwa vs. ITO, Khandwa

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 521/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 44A

circumstances of the case and applicable law, NA both the Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. Assessing Officer erred in not giving reasonable opportunity of being heard. Page 2 of 6 Dharmendra Kumar ITA No. 521/Ind/2023 - AY 2018-19 10. On the facts and circumstances of the case and applicable

M/S Singhal Tel Evam Pashu Ahar Udyog, Tonk vs. Income Tax Oficer Ward Tonk, Tonk

ITA 965/JPR/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Aug 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: CIT(A), the assessee firm had engaged Shri Mahaveer Lal Jain, but said counsel left this world on 30.05.2021, and as such, the applicant had no information or knowledge about the impugned order, dated 13.03.2025, passed by Learned CIT(A). So, the prayer is that the appeal be admitted.

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Harsh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

given situation, we deem it a fit case to restore the appeal before Learned CIT(A), for decision afresh, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee-appellant. 5 M/s Singhal Tel Evam Pashu Ahar Udyog, Tonk. Result 10. In view of the above discussion and findings, this

Niranjan Lal, Kishangarh Bass vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Alwar

ITA 806/JPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 194Section 194HSection 250Section 44A

this appeal is disposed of, for statistical purposes, and the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer for decision afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee-appellant. File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced

Sushila Nandwana, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 1(1), Jaipur

ITA 777/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Anoop Bhatia, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 148

issues involved, we deem it a fit case to remit the matter to the Assessing Officer for decision afresh, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5 Sushila Nandwana, Jaipur. Result 10. In the given situation, the appeal is disposed of, for statistical purpose ... interest of justice, the matter is restored to the files of the Assessing Officer for decision afresh, providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 11. Since the assessee did not comply with the directions issued by the Assessing Officer and the matter has to be remitted

Syed Mohammad Mayar Husain Rizvi, Panchkula vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangaluru

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

ITA 89/LKW/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 249(3)Section 253(3)

directed to pass de novo I.T.A. No.89/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2011-12 4 order in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open court on 26/08/2025

Shri Shivbachan Sewa Santhan, Ghazipur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Lucknow

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

ITA 125/LKW/2025[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Aug 2025AY 2024-2025

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 12ASection 253(3)Section 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(vi)

assessee for registration u/s 12AB and grant of approval u/s 80G(5) of the Act afresh after giving proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be present on the date of hearing and provide the material / clarification as asked

Shri Shivbachan Sewa Santhan, Ghazipur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Lucknow

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

ITA 124/LKW/2025[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Aug 2025AY 2024-2025

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 12ASection 253(3)Section 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(vi)

Satish Kumar Sharma, Pinjore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh

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

ITA 696/CHANDI/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Aug 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A). However, It Is Noticed From The Impugned Order That Even Before The First Appellate

For Appellant: Sh. Ayush Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

Section 250

order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. The AO shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and thereafter decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to cooperate in the proceedings

Ajit Singh, Patiala vs. ITO, Patiala

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

ITA 158/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Us, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit, Which Is Reproduced As Under:-

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Rejected)For Respondent: Smt. Surinder Kaur Waraich, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

substantiate his explanation regarding the cash deposits. The Assessing Officer shall decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Result 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the open Court

Shreeji Janseva Khandi Gramodhyog Sangh, Ahmedabad vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 92/AHD/2025[NA]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad26 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Alpesh Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT DR

Section 12A

restore the matter back to his file with the direction to examine the application of the assessee afresh on merits, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee is directed to cooperate fully and furnish all requisite documents to establish the genuineness of its activities and compliance with statutory

The Visnagar Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd., Mehsana vs. The ACIT, Circle-Gandhinagar (Previously DCIT, Patan Circle, Patan), Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 738/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.738, 1414 & 1415/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : (2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) The Visnagar Nagarik Sahakari The Assistant Commissioner Bank Ltd.,(Under Liquidation) बनाम Of Income Tax, / Market Yard, Circle Gandhinagar. V/S. Visnagar, (Previously Dcit, Mehsana-384315, Patan Circle, Patan) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaaft8764C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A P Nanavaty, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: ] ] These Three Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)”], All Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Arising From The Assessments Framed By The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle, Patan [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Assessing Officer Or Ao”] Under Section 143(3) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri A P Nanavaty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(4)

assessee’s own case for earlier year. Needless to say, the assessee shall be afforded due opportunity of being heard and to place on record all relevant facts, documents, and judicial authorities in support of its claim. 24. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed