← 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

Ankit Kumar Singhania, Shakti vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Bilaspur

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

ITA 477/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.477/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ankit Kumar Singhania, Village Post-Baradwar Basti, Ward No.10, Dharamshal Road, Sakti, Janjgir-Champa-495 687 Pan: Bypps9579C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Ballarpur ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Birendra Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 250

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 ... light of such decision, the petitioner ought to have been granted an 6 Ankit Kumar Singhania Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Bilaspur 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

Renu Devi, Patna vs. ITO, Patna

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

ITA 672/PAT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna25 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 672/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Renu Devi,……………………………....….………Appellant D/79, P.C. Colony, Lohia Nagar, Kankarbagh, Patna-800020, Bihar [Pan:Algpd4522P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………...…….Respondent Ward-6(2), Patna Appearances By: Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 24, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 25, 2025 O R D E R

Section 144Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45Section 48

remit the matter back to the file of ld. Assessing Officer with a direction to dispose of the case on merit after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before

Gaurav Ajmera, Ratlam vs. DCIT(Central)-2, Indore

Accordingly, Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 808/IND/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 115BSection 131Section 132(4)Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 234ASection 271ASection 274

should not be made under section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act 1961 if you do not wish to avall yourself of this opportunity of being heard in person or through authorized representative you may show cause in writing on or before the side date which will be considered before ... order imposing a penalty shall be made unless the assessee has been heard, or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In this case the 7 Gaurav Ajmera ITA No. 808/Ind/2024 – AY 2017-18 assessing officer has given notices and in response thereto the representative of the assessee

Ratlam Ahinsa Shiksha Samiti, Ratlam vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Bhopal

The appeal of the assessee is allowed accordingly and the Id

ITA 719/IND/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Aug 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 10Section 11Section 12Section 80G(5)

section code inadvertently while filing the application for final registration in Form 10AB. Further, we notice that the assessee did not have the opportunity of being heard before CIT(E) due to incorrect course of action advised, and that otherwise the assessee might have explained the facts before

Ayush Abhay Jain, Khandwa vs. Ward 1 Khandwa, Khandwa

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 641/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi**

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 144Section 68

without* *jurisdiction, it is based on incorrect interpretation of law and without allowing proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard, moreover the facts have also been incorrectly construed.* - *1.2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT(A) erred in sustaining ... parte order u/s 144 passed by the Ld. AO without allowing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that reason for non-compliance was that the appellant is not conversant electronic applications of communications hence he was not aware

Hematology Foundation, Lucknow vs. CPC Bengaluru, Jurisdictional AO- Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax(Exemption), Lucknow

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 285/LKW/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2020-21 Hematology Foundation V. The Cit(Exemption) I-Block, Hematology Office Lucknow Sgpgi, Raebareily Road Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aabth3096C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 05.03.2024, Passed By The Learned Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Nashik For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Trust Registered Under Section 12A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’). The Assessee-Trust Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 11.01.2021, Declaring Nil Income, After Claiming Exemption Under Section 11 Of The Act. The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc), Bangalore Processed The Return Under Section 143(1) Of The Act, Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.18,28,596/-, Thereby Raising A Demand Of Rs.4,30,120/-.

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154

natural justice. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in passing the order without giving adequate opportunity of being heard. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs18,28,596//-made

Gurusthali Santhan Aiwam Shiksha Prasar Samiti, Meerut vs. CIT(Exemption), Lucknow

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 150/LKW/2022[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: N.A. Gurusthali Santhan Aiwam V. The Cit(Exemption) Shiksha Prasar Samiti Lucknow 62/2, Civil Line, Saket Road Near Dhanwantri Hospital Meerut (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aabtg8951F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Narendra Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 12A

application of the assessee for registration under section 12AA of ITA No.150/LKW/2022 Page 6 of 6 the Act after giving proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 9.0 In the final result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open

Kuldeep Singh, Vpo Dillow Wali, Distt. Kaithal vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department

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

ITA 505/CHANDI/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: The Tribunal Has Been Filed With A Delay Of 370 Days. The Assessee Has Submitted An Application, Supported By An Affidavit, Explaining The Reasons For The Delay. It Was Submitted That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing The Appeal Within The Prescribed Period Owing To Bona Fide Reasons & Financial Difficulties. The Ld. Ar Pleaded That The Delay Was Neither Deliberate Nor Intentional & Prayed That The Same May Kindly Be Condoned In The Interest Of Substantial Justice.

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Surinder Kaur Waraich, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR (Virtual)
Section 249(4)

assessee for exemption from deposit of tax in the light of the hardship pleaded. The ld. CIT(A) shall provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and thereafter adjudicate the appeal afresh in accordance with law. 7.2 It is hereby clarified that no opinion has been expressed

Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1)(1) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Aadinath Developers, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed

ITA 689/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: None
Section 144Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 68Section 80

aside and is referred back to the AO for making a fresh assessment. Needless to add, the AO shall afford adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing the assessment order de novo. In view of this, grounds no. 1, 5 & 6 are ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPSOE

Bapa Bajrangdas Recidanciy Velfer Association, Ahmedabad vs. ITO Ward 7(2)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 662/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 250

restored to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for de-novo adjudication after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to submit the necessary documents in support of its claim. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the proceedings and file the requisite submissions within

Bapa Bajrangdas Recidanciy Velfer Association, Ahmedabad vs. ITO Ward 7(2)1, Ahmedabad

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 661/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 250

restored to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for de-novo adjudication after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to submit the necessary documents in support of its claim. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the proceedings and file the requisite submissions within

Mahavir Inductomelt Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1068/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit , Sr DR
Section 115BSection 145Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 80G

appeals: 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in passing an Ex Parte order without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Hence the same being against the principles of natural justice and equity requires to be quashed. 2. The learned Commissioner

Mahavir Inductomelt Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1067/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit , Sr DR
Section 115BSection 145Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 80G

appeals: 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in passing an Ex Parte order without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Hence the same being against the principles of natural justice and equity requires to be quashed. 2. The learned Commissioner

Maheshkumar Laljidas Patel, Visnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 Patan, Patan

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

ITA 1021/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalthe Income Tax Officer Maheshkumar Laljidas Patel, Vs. Ward-1, Market Yard Visnagar, Patan. Visnagar-384315. [Pan :Agtpp7220 Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Vipul Gohil, Ar Respondent By: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.08.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:- Delay Condoned

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Gohil, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 271DSection 271ESection 274

submissions of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) are as under:- “……. [8] That penalty was imposed without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard in nature of equity and justice. Hence, it may therefore be deleted. On 17/05/2019, Appellant received show cause notice u/s 271E of the Act requesting ... condition that no order imposing a penalty shall be made unless the assessee has been heard or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In your appellant's case, there is gross violation of principles of nature justice and hence forth it is urged to delete the penalty

Maheshkumar Laljidas Patel, Visnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Patan

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

ITA 1020/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Zthe Income Tax Officer Maheshkumar Laljidas Patel, Vs. Ward-1, Market Yard Visnagar, Patan. Visnagar-384315. [Pan :Agtpp7220 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) .. Appellant By : Shri Vipul Gohil, Ar Respondent By: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.08.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:- Delay Condoned

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Gohil, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DR

passing of an ex-parte order on 09.01.2024. We, therefore, find that no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue if an opportunity of being heard is given to the assessee. Hence, in the interest of justice, the matter is remanded to the file of ITA Nos. 1020/Ahd/2025 Maheshkumar

Fis Solutions (India) Gratuity Trust, Pune vs. DCIT Circle 3(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 542/PUN/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

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

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A VazeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 10(25)(iv)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234B

matter back to his file for adjudication afresh and pass speaking order on merits as per fact and law after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to provide the requisite support in terms of submitting the relevant documents/ evidence

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Endurance Technoligies Limited, Aurangabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 506/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrasr No 1

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak andFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR and
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 35(1)Section 80I

orders have been passed with reference to earlier assessment years. At the same time, the assessee has not been given any opportunity of being heard as required under proviso to Rule 6 (5A) before rejecting the said application. Therefore, impliedly, the application for the entire period, for which ... rule and in sub-section (2AB) being fulfilled, pass an order in writing in form No.3CM. The proviso however lays down that reasonable opportunity of being heard is to be granted to the company before rejecting an application. So, the application has to be made under sub-rule

Rajkumar Parshuram Mhatre, Poynad vs. Assessing Officer, Ward Panvel

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

ITA 1764/PUN/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Aug 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ronak H JainFor Respondent: Shri Milind Debaje, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250(6)Section 68

additional evidence as per Rule 46A(1) of the IT Rules and decide the issue as per fact and law after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes

Kachhi Dasa Oawal Jain Dnyati Mahajan Sevabhavi Sanstha, Nashik vs. CIT, Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 1037/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrakachhi Dasa Oawal Jain Dnyati Cit(Exemption), Pune Mahajan Sevabhavi Sansta Yellosoft Infotech Harsiddhi Vs. Apartment, Krishna Nagar, Near Old Adgaon Naka, Adgaon, Nashik – 422003 Pan: Aaiak2381H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.P. Daware (Virtually) Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 19-08-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25-08-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R.P. Daware (virtually)For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

directly relevant to the present proceedings. However, the assessee has failed to comply despite giving sufficient opportunities as discussed above including an opportunity of being heard. 8. Thus, the assessee has failed to furnish the details called for under the provisions of section 12AB(1)(b)(i) of the Income

Dnyanagan Education Society, Satara vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 2864/PUN/2024[- NA -]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandradnyanagan Education Society Cit(Exemption), Pune Shaniwar Peth Karad, Chaitanya Vs. 467/56 Karad, Satara – 415110 Pan: Aadtd2704P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor Phadke Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 19-08-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25-08-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

file of the Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to decide the issue afresh and in accordance with law after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result