← 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

Urban Improvement Trust (Now Kota Development Authority), Kota vs. DCIT (Exemptions), Circle, Jaipur

In the result, the assessee’s income is found to be not chargeable under the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions made, irrespective of the head of income

ITA 811/JPR/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalacit, Exemption, Circle, Jaipur ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 250

circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A) erred in passing Impugned order u/s 250 of the Act without providing adequate opportunity of being heard 3. under the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not providing ... circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A) erred in passing Impugned order u/s 250 of the Act without providing opportunity of being heard including personal hearing, thereby violating the principle of natural justice 3. Under the facts and the circumstances of the case

Urban Improvement Trust, Kota vs. DCIT (Exemptions), Circle, Jaipur

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable

ITA 803/JPR/2024[AY 2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 250

circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A) erred in passing Impugned order u/s 250 of the Act without providing adequate opportunity of being heard 3. under the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not providing ... circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A) erred in passing Impugned order u/s 250 of the Act without providing opportunity of being heard including personal hearing, thereby violating the principle of natural justice 3. Under the facts and the circumstances of the case

DCIT, Exemptions, Circle, Jaipur vs. Urban Improvement Trust, Kota

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable

ITA 797/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

Section 250

circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A) erred in passing Impugned order u/s 250 of the Act without providing adequate opportunity of being heard 3. under the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not providing ... circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A) erred in passing Impugned order u/s 250 of the Act without providing opportunity of being heard including personal hearing, thereby violating the principle of natural justice 3. Under the facts and the circumstances of the case

DCIT, Exemptions, Circle, Jaipur vs. Urban Improvement Trust, Kota

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable

ITA 796/JPR/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 250

circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A) erred in passing Impugned order u/s 250 of the Act without providing adequate opportunity of being heard 3. under the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not providing ... circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A) erred in passing Impugned order u/s 250 of the Act without providing opportunity of being heard including personal hearing, thereby violating the principle of natural justice 3. Under the facts and the circumstances of the case

DCIT, Exemptions, Circle, Jaipur vs. Urban Improvement Trust, Kota

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable

ITA 795/JPR/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 250

circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A) erred in passing Impugned order u/s 250 of the Act without providing adequate opportunity of being heard 3. under the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not providing ... circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A) erred in passing Impugned order u/s 250 of the Act without providing opportunity of being heard including personal hearing, thereby violating the principle of natural justice 3. Under the facts and the circumstances of the case

DCIT, Exemptions, Circle, Jaipur vs. Urban Improvement Trust, Kota

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable

ITA 794/JPR/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Respondent: Mr. Prakul Khurana, Adv. &
Section 250

circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A) erred in passing Impugned order u/s 250 of the Act without providing adequate opportunity of being heard 3. under the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not providing ... circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A) erred in passing Impugned order u/s 250 of the Act without providing opportunity of being heard including personal hearing, thereby violating the principle of natural justice 3. Under the facts and the circumstances of the case

Urban Improvement Trust, Kota vs. DCIT (Exemptions), Circle, Jaipur

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable

ITA 774/JPR/2024[AY 2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 250

circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A) erred in passing Impugned order u/s 250 of the Act without providing adequate opportunity of being heard 3. under the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not providing ... circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A) erred in passing Impugned order u/s 250 of the Act without providing opportunity of being heard including personal hearing, thereby violating the principle of natural justice 3. Under the facts and the circumstances of the case

Urban Improvement Trust, Kota vs. DCIT (Exemptions), Circle, Jaipur

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable

ITA 773/JPR/2024[AY 2003-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 250

circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A) erred in passing Impugned order u/s 250 of the Act without providing adequate opportunity of being heard 3. under the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not providing ... circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A) erred in passing Impugned order u/s 250 of the Act without providing opportunity of being heard including personal hearing, thereby violating the principle of natural justice 3. Under the facts and the circumstances of the case

Urban Improvement Trust, Kota vs. DCIT (Exemptions), Circle, Jaipur

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable

ITA 731/JPR/2024[AY 2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 250

circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A) erred in passing Impugned order u/s 250 of the Act without providing adequate opportunity of being heard 3. under the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not providing ... circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A) erred in passing Impugned order u/s 250 of the Act without providing opportunity of being heard including personal hearing, thereby violating the principle of natural justice 3. Under the facts and the circumstances of the case

ACIT, Exemptions, Circle, Jaipur vs. Urban Improvement Trust, Kota

In the result, the assessee’s income is found to be not chargeable under the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions made, irrespective of the head of income

ITA 717/JPR/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalacit, Exemption, Circle, Jaipur ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 250

circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A) erred in passing Impugned order u/s 250 of the Act without providing adequate opportunity of being heard 3. under the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not providing ... circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A) erred in passing Impugned order u/s 250 of the Act without providing opportunity of being heard including personal hearing, thereby violating the principle of natural justice 3. Under the facts and the circumstances of the case

Dharmendra Kumar, Bhanwargarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Baran

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

ITA 1322/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Swapnil Agarwal, CA, (Thru: V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 249(4)

view that lis between the parties has to be decided on merits so that nobody’s rights could be scuttled down without providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, the matter is restored to the file of the AO to decide it afresh by providing one more opportunity

Samadarshan Trust, Gandhinagar vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 367/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Aug 2025

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(ii)Section 80G(5)(iv)

file of the Commissioner (Exemptions) for de novo consideration under the correct provision, i.e., section 80G(5)(ii), after granting due opportunity of being heard. The ld. counsel for the assessee Samadarshan Trust vs. CIT(E) Asst.Year –N.A. - 4– placed reliance on the case on Aatman Foundation ... wrong section code inadvertently while filing the application for final registration in Form 10AB. Further, we notice that assessee did not have the opportunity of being heard before ld. CIT(E) due to incorrect course of action advised, which otherwise assessee might have explained the facts to avoid the impugned

Shankarbhai Virabhai Patel, Dahod vs. ITO Ward-1, Dahod

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

ITA 2219/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Parag Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-D.R
Section 147Section 194CSection 44ASection 69ASection 80T

Thus Sections 115BBE and 69A regarding undisclosed income shall not be imposed on the Assessee. 6. The Assessee has not received a proper opportunity of being heard from the First Appellate Authority. The Documents including Statement of Facts and grounds of appeal were filed with the CIT (Appeals

Shankarbhai Virabhai Patel, Dahod vs. ITO Ward-1, Dahod

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

ITA 2218/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Parag Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-D.R
Section 147Section 194CSection 44ASection 69ASection 80T

Thus Sections 115BBE and 69A regarding undisclosed income shall not be imposed on the Assessee. 6. The Assessee has not received a proper opportunity of being heard from the First Appellate Authority. The Documents including Statement of Facts and grounds of appeal were filed with the CIT (Appeals

Kiran Baburao Jadhav, Pune vs. DCIT, Pmt Building Swargat

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

ITA 805/PUN/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Aug 2025AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2023-24 Shri Kiran Baburao Jadhav Dcit, Swargate, Pune Flat No.4, Shubhamkar Apts, Lane Vs. No.14, Bhandarkar Road, Pune – 411004 Pan: Addpj5634M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gajanan N Kondhare Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 28-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-08-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Gajanan N KondhareFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115JSection 139Section 140BSection 143Section 143(1)Section 208Section 210Section 234BSection 234B(1)Section 89

issue to the file of the CPC with a direction to verify the computation of interest and pass appropriate order after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and in accordance with law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed

Sundeep Sethi, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 44(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1248/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Aug 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1248/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sundeep Sethi…….……………………………...………………..….……….Appellant 164, M. G. Road, Burra Bazar, Kol-7. [Pan: Alaps7114C] Vs. Ito, Ward-44(2), Kolkata ………..........................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sima Das Biswas, Jcit-Sr.Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 11, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 11, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 20.03.2024 For The Assessment Year 2015–16. 2. At The Outset The Ld. Ar Stated That There Is A Delay Of 374 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Citing Reasonable Cause For The Belated Filing. We After Considering The Submissions & Materials On Record, We Are Satisfied That The Assessee Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause In Filing The Appeal Within The Prescribed Time. Accordingly, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication On Merits. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2015–16 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.12,79,510/-. Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee For The Reasons That The Assessee In Ei Schedule Of The Said Return Has Claimed Exempt Income Under The Head ‘Long Term Capital Gains’ From Transaction On Which Securities Transaction Tax Is Paid. In

Section 148Section 43(2)Section 68

Sethi matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to submit necessary supporting documents. The assessee is also directed to cooperate in the proceedings without fail. Thus, the appeal

Shree Karni Mata Trust, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 1214/KOL/2025[----]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 5Section 80G

Exemption) is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to him for deciding the application afresh after granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and allowing the assessee to make proper submission in respect of the queries raised and in accordance with law. Hence, the appeal ... aside and the matter is remanded to him for deciding the application afresh after granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and to make proper submission in respect of the queries raised and thereafter pass an order on the application filed in accordance with law. Hence, this appeal

Shree Karni Mata Trust, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemptiion), Kolkata

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

ITA 1213/KOL/2025[----]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 5Section 80G

Exemption) is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to him for deciding the application afresh after granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and allowing the assessee to make proper submission in respect of the queries raised and in accordance with law. Hence, the appeal ... aside and the matter is remanded to him for deciding the application afresh after granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and to make proper submission in respect of the queries raised and thereafter pass an order on the application filed in accordance with law. Hence, this appeal

Assistantcommissionerof Incometax, Central Circle-3(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva vs. M/S. Anubandh Financial Services Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2390/KOL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 68

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

Lake Chemicals Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 958/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Vishal S Rao, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT
Section 250Section 253(1)Section 253(5)

merits. On the other hand, no undue prejudice would be caused to the revenue by granting condonation and allowing the Appellant an opportunity to be heard. In light of the above facts and circumstances, the Appellant prays that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to: Condone the delay ... inclined to remand the instant case to the file Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh by considering such documents and affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. Thus, the case is accordingly remanded to the file of Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, in the above terms. . ITANo.958/Bang/2025 Page