“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

Oversure Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 6(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 517/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraoversure Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito, Ward-6(3), Kolkata 1, Rn Mukherjee Road, Mezanine Floor, Room No.30, Kolkata Pan No. :Aabco 6133 E (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri A. N. Keshri, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subrata Aich, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri A. N. Keshri, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subrata Aich, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)

direction, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard to substantiate its case. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced

Blackberry Properties Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 332/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

well as the Ld. AO and remit the matter to the Ld. AO for making the assessment de novo after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after considering the submission of the assessee. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Twopiradian Infotech Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO Ward 2(1)-Kol, Kolkata

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 247/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 13/02/2024, though belatedly, vide e-Filing Acknowledgement Number: 110773970130224 for the Assessment Year 2021-22 belatedly on the grounds explained WARI the Statement of Facts and Grounds of Appeal.

Section 245Section 246ASection 250Section 253

Returned Income of the Assessee by disallowing the expenditure under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, by CPC, Bengaluru, without giving any opportunity of being heard and subsequent dismissal of appeal under Section 246A of the Act, by the Hon'ble ADDL/JCIT (A)-1, SURAT under Section ... filing the details of depositing the PF & ESI amounts in the government account. Needless to say, the Ld. AO would give an opportunity of being heard and the assessee would do well to furnish all necessary documents so that there is no confusion regarding the dates on which the PF/ESI

Twopiradian Infotech Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO Ward 2(1)-Kol, Kolkata

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 246/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Section 245Section 246ASection 250Section 253

Twopiradian Infotech Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Kolkata

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 245/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Section 245Section 246ASection 250Section 253

Maisali Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., Contai, East Medinipore vs. I.T.O., Ward - 27(2), Haldia

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

ITA 1666/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1666/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year. :2018-2019) Maisali Samabay Krishi Unnayan Vs Adit, Cpc, Bangalore Samity Limited, C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor Kolkata-700069 Pan No. : Aadam 3104 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agrawal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Mrinmoy Basak, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. Shri Siddharth Agrawal, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Mrinmoy Basak, Ld. Sr.Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 1155 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported With An Affidavit Stating Therein That Sri Bhaskar Chandra Patra, Who Used To Look After The Income Tax Matter Of The Assessee Was Suffering From Jaundice & Remained Absent From Office Of The Assessee For A Long Time & When He Joined To Office, There Was Already Delay In Filing The Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Before The Tribunal. The Contents Of The Affidavit Are As Under :-

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mrinmoy Basak, Sr. DR

that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay without providing any sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It was also the submission of the ld. AR that the delay was on account of ill-health of the staff ... issues in the appeal to the file of ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating the issues on merits after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee shall cooperate in the readjudication proceeding before the ld. CIT(A) positively. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly

Jaikusuma Balakrishna Shetty, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1096/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Ld.CAFor Respondent: Sri Balasamy N – Ld.JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234Section 250

remitting the instant case to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for decision afresh, suffice to say by providing an reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, for demonstrating the reason for delay of 49 days and merits of the case. 10. The assessee is also directed to file

DCIT Central Circle 7 (1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Panther Investrade Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the Cross appeals no

ITA 416/MUM/2025[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Akash Kumar, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan (Sr. DR)

Section 271(1)(c)

with certain observations to decide the issue afresh. The directions given by the ITAT had not been followed. Before passing the order, an opportunity of being heard should have been given to the assessee, which didn’t seem to have been given. It was thus clear that the directions ... 416/Mum/2025 CO No. 50, 51/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2002-03, 2003-04 Panther Investrade Limited, Mumbai reasonable opportunity of being heard". It went onto observe that for sustaining the plea of natural justice on the ground of absence of opportunity, it has to be established that prejudice is caused to the concerned

DCIT(Central Circle)-7(1), Mumbai vs. Panther Investrade Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the Cross appeals no

ITA 415/MUM/2025[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Akash Kumar, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan (Sr. DR)

Section 271(1)(c)

T C L India Holding Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner, NFAC

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2283/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankartcl India Holding Private V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, 114, Mahim United बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 11(3)(1), Industrial Premises, Moghal Aaykar Bhavan, 427, 4Th Floor, Lane, Mahim (W), Mumbai – M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 016, Maharashtra 400020, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabct9975D Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Stefan Richard Moraes, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)

Section 144Section 144r

that since the ld. CIT(A) and the AO both have passed the ex-parte 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 authoritiesso as to provide details in connection with

Late Shri. Kasam Nurmad Karadiya, Jogeshwari, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 41(4)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2069/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankarlate Shri Kasam Nurmad V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – Karadiya बनाम 41(4)(2), Kautilya Bhavan, (Through His Legal Heir Shri Rahemtullah Kasambhai Avenue 3, Near Videsh Karadiya) 804, Anand Co-Op Bhavan, G Block Bkc, Hsg Society, Behram Baug Bandra Kurla Complex, Road, Jogeshwari West, Bandra (East), Mumbai – Mumbai–400102, Maharashtra 400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aahpk5855E Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: None. Paper book on recordFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 27Section 54F

During the course of hearing, none attended. Since the ld. CIT(A) passed ex-parte order and the assessee was not provided adequate opportunity of being heard,we proposed that therepresentatives of the deceased assessee may be provided one more opportunity to advance their arguments/submissions before the lower authoritiesso

Kaushal Anil Shah, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-20, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1952/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Reepal G. Trashawala,ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra,(CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 69C

making fresh assessment in the light of above observations. He shall make necessary inquiry and verification and give the opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing necessary order. Page 4 ITA No. 1952/Mum/2025 Α.Υ. 2021-22 Kaushal Anil Shah 4. Before us, it is contented

Pushtiseva Foundation, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai

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

ITA 1227/MUM/2025[Not Applicable]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

Section 10Section 10(23)Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 80G

erred in rejecting the application filed by the Appellant for registration u/s. 12AB of the Act without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 2 Pushtiseva Foundation 1.2. The Appellant submits that an order passed without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Appellant is in violation

ACIT 2(2)(1) Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai vs. National Peroxide Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No 2816/Mum/2023 is partly allowed

ITA 2816/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeacit 2(2)(1) Mumbai Vs National Peroxide Limited 4Th Floor, Naville House, J N Heredia Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001 Pan: Aabcn7072K

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R Singh, CIT DR

Section 115Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 43B

novo adjudication, directing that the correct financial data for FY 2017–18 be considered after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 10. With regard to the issues raised through intimation under section 143(1), specifically the additions made under sections 43B and 115JB, which are sought

Tara Bhakuni, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ghaziabad

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3733/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON'BLE (Vice President)

For Appellant: Shri Sunjeev Batra, Adv. & Sh. KailashFor Respondent: Shri Sangeet Bansal, Sr. DR

dispute to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with the directions to decide the same afresh on merits, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to fully cooperate with the Ld. CIT(A) during the proceedings. 4. In the result, the Assessee

Ramprastha Promoters and Developers Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3658/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2016-17 Ramprastha Promoters & Developers Vs. Income Tax Officer, (P) Ltd., Tds Ward 78(1), C-10, C Block, Main Market, Aayakar Bhawan, Vasant Vihar, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi (Pan: Aadcr6481J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Sangeet Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.08.2025 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Emanating From The Order Dated 26.3.2025 Of The Addl/Jcit(A)-7, Mumbai In Appeal No. Itba/Apls/250/2024- 25/1075060581(1) Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee, Despite Issue Of Notice For Hearing, Hence, I Am Deciding The Appeal Exparte Qua The Assessee, After Hearing The Ld. Dr & Perusing The Records. It Is Noted That It Was The Contention Of The Assessee That Cit(A) Dismissed The Appeal Without Giving Opportunity To The Assessee As It Had Requested For Adjournment Upon Getting Clarification For The Ld. Cit(A). It Was The Further Contention That Ao Erred In Disallowing Of Tds At Rs. 2,12,000/- Which Could Not Be Pointed Out During The Course Of Verification Process, Without Giving Any Opportunity To The Assessee.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sangeet Bansal, Sr. DR

dispute is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the directions to consider the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, in accordance with law amd verify the documents for the claim of the TDS credit. Assessee is also directed through

Sidharth Cooperative Credit and Thrift Society Limited, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bhilai, Durg

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

ITA 361/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Raipur01 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.361/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sidharth Co-Operative Credit & Thrift Society Limited. Nayapara Titrudhi, Durg-490 020 (C.G.) Pan: Aagas2471Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 246ASection 250Section 260A

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 7 Sidharth Co-operative Credit & Thrift Society Limited. Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhilai of the fundamental right under Article

Urmila Rajendra Mundra, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Ajmer

In the result grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 577/JPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(1)

order accepting or rejecting such application: Provided that no order rejecting the application shall be passed unless the assessee has been given an opportunity of being heard. (5) The order made under sub-section (4) shall be final. (6) No appeal under section [section 246 or] section 246A ... order accepting or rejecting such application: Provided that no order rejecting the application shall be passed unless the assessee has been given an opportunity of being heard. ** ** ** 13. The proviso to Sub-section (4) of Section 270AA of the Act makes it amply clear that before an application of rejected

Smt. Sangeeta Gupta, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Jaipur

ITA 545/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 69Section 69A

appeals filed before Learned CIT(A) are restored to their respective original number, with the direction that Learned CIT(A) shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the appellant, and dispose of the appeals afresh, in accordance with law. 17. In the given situation, when the appellant-applicant

Smt. Sangeeta Gupta, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Jaipur

ITA 544/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 69Section 69A