← 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

Thekkinian Paulose Varkey, Thrissur vs. ACIT, Circle 2(1), Thrissur

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

ITA 960/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Thekkinian Poulose Varkey .......... Appellant Thekkinian (H), Koratty South P.O., Thrissur 68030 [Pan: Aedpv4959E] Vs. Acit, Circle - 2(1), Thrissur .......... Respondent Assessee By: Ms. Niveditha K. Kammath, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 26.09.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Engaged In The Business Of Executing Construction Contracts Under The Name & Style Of T.P. Constructions. The Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18 Was Filed On 01.11.2017 Declaring Income Of Rs. 77,93,730/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Acit, Circle 2(1), Thrissur (Hereinafter Called

For Appellant: Ms. Niveditha K. Kammath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 68

restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication keeping in view the ratio of the above decisions after according opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Thus, grounds A to C stand partly allowed for statistical purposes. 9. Grounds of appeal D & F challenges the confirmation

Trio Shopping Mall Spaces Private Limited, Calicut vs. JCIT, TDS, Kochi

ITA 1006/COCH/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 250Section 271CSection 274

hereby set aside the impugned orders of the CIT(A)in for fresh adjudication; The CIT(A) shall provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, including permitting the assessee to file any documents or explanations as necessary. The assessee is directed to comply with the notices and cooperate

Trio Shopping Mall Spaces Private Limited, Calicut vs. JCIT, TDS, Kochi

ITA 1005/COCH/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 250Section 271CSection 274

hereby set aside the impugned orders of the CIT(A)in for fresh adjudication; The CIT(A) shall provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, including permitting the assessee to file any documents or explanations as necessary. The assessee is directed to comply with the notices and cooperate

Rajyeshwar Retail Trade Systems Pvt Ltd, Indore vs. ACIT Central-2, Bhopal

ITA 33/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

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

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 246ASection 253Section 272A(1)(d)

Officer. Accordingly, the plea of the appellant that penalty levied u/s 272A(1)(d) for the A. Y under consideration without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard is not sustainable and therefore, the claim of the appellant on these grounds are not acceptable. 4.1.3 In view of above discussions ... case Ld. A.O has erred in passing and Ld. CIT(A)-3, Bhopal has erred in confirming the impugned order without affording any opportunity of being heard against the principles of natural justice. 3. That the assessee craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any of the grounds

Suresh Patel, Dewas vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 131/IND/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

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

Section 144Section 249(4)(b)Section 253(5)Section 271(1)(c)

merits of the case. Needles to say, the CIT( Appeals) shall in the course of the set-aside proceedings afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.” 8. Accordingly, to maintain the rule of consistency we follow the earlier decisions of the Tribunal cited above and consequently

Suresh Patel, Dewas vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 130/IND/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

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

Section 144Section 249(4)(b)Section 253(5)Section 271(1)(c)

merits of the case. Needles to say, the CIT( Appeals) shall in the course of the set-aside proceedings afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.” 8. Accordingly, to maintain the rule of consistency we follow the earlier decisions of the Tribunal cited above and consequently

Badam Singh, Bhopal vs. ITO 4(1), Bhopal

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

ITA 127/IND/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshibadam Singh, Income Tax Officer- बनाम/ 392 Gram Palasi, 4(1), Vs. New Jail Road, Bhopal Karond, Bhopal (Pan: Drhps5664B) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 31.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 143Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 282

assessee. In view of the foregoing, these grounds are dismissed. 7.5.2 Ground no. 4: The appellant claims that he did not get an opportunity of being heard during assessment proceedings. However, this claim is not borne out by the assessment order as there were adequate opportunities provided to the appellant ... liable to be annulled. Ground 3. That in the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant did not get the opportunity of being heard and hence the order is against the natural justice of law. The Learned CIT Appeals upheld the ex parte order passed

Madan Lal Bapna, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward 3(5), Jaipur

12. As a result, ITA No

ITA 731/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh Prateek Jain, C.A. &For Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Chaudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Learned CIT(A) and remand of the matter pertaining to the quantum proceedings, to the Assessing Officer for decision fresh, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 11. In the given facts and circumstances, we are also of the view that in order to provide reasonable opportunity ... impugned order dated 17.03.2025, the matter pertaining in quantum proceedings is remanded to the Assessing Officer for decision afresh, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant, in accordance with law. 13. ITA No. 731/JPR/2025.- Since, as noticed above, the matter appearing to the quantum proceeding has been

Madan Lal Bapna, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward 3(5), Jaipur

12. As a result, ITA No

ITA 730/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jul 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Sh Prateek Jain, C.A. &For Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Chaudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Learned CIT(A) and remand of the matter pertaining to the quantum proceedings, to the Assessing Officer for decision fresh, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 11. In the given facts and circumstances, we are also of the view that in order to provide reasonable opportunity ... impugned order dated 17.03.2025, the matter pertaining in quantum proceedings is remanded to the Assessing Officer for decision afresh, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant, in accordance with law. 13. ITA No. 731/JPR/2025.- Since, as noticed above, the matter appearing to the quantum proceeding has been

Bishankhedi Gram Seva Sahkari Samiti Limited, Village Bishankhedi Jhalawar vs. ITO, WD, Jhalawar Assessing Officer, Jhalawar

ITA 474/JPR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

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

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Kumar Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 115BSection 133Section 144Section 250Section 68

files of the Assessing Officer with direction to decide afresh the issue regarding deposit of cash during demonetization period, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant society. The Assessing Officer may also resort to the provisions 5 Bishankhedi Gram Seva Sahkar Samiti Ltd. , Jhalawar of section

Skyhigh Infraprojects Private Ltd., Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-6(1), Lucknow

ITA 242/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri, Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68

Section 250(6) of the "Act". 1.2 BECAUSE the Id. "CIT(A) has passed the impugned order without affording due and effective opportunity of being heard to the “appellant” and consequently the impugned order passed by the ld. “CIT(A)” deserves to be set aside and matter restored ... file for passing the order a-fresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. ITA No.242/LKW/2025 Page 2 of 7 2. BECAUSE notice under section 143(2) dated 09.08.2018 issued for selection of this case for scrutiny assessment through CASS is not valid as necessary conditions specified

Randheer Singh, Faizabad vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, NFAC, Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 218/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Randheer Singh V. The Assessment Unit Nara Pura Bazar Income Tax Department Faizabad Nfac, Delhi Tan/Pan:Gpfps1546D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shailendra Mishra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Shailendra Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 115BSection 144BSection 147Section 147rSection 148Section 69A

Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and on facts in failing to consider that the Id. A.O. has not allowed adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and passed the impugned assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s.144 read section 144B of the I.T. Act, 1961, without placing ... withdrawals from Bank account, which has been wrongly made by AO. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the AO has not allowed adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and passed the impugned assessment order under section 147 read with sections144 and 144B of the Act, without bringing

Arvind Kumar Singh, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Lucknow

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

ITA 802/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2016-17 Arvind Kumar Singh V. Ito-1(1) 1205/20, D- Block, Indira Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Nagar, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh- 57, Ram Tirath Marg, 226016. Lucknow-226001. Pan:Avups2851C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri G. S. Ojha, Adv Respondent By: Shri Puneet Kumar, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing: 15 07 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31 07 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri G. S. Ojha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Puneet Kumar, CIT- DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

decision thereof is bad in law and liable to set aside. 05. Because the Ld. CIT (A) has erred while not giving adequate opportunity of being heard like thereof is bad in law and against the Principle of Natural Justice “Audi Alteram Partem” of Constitution of India. 06. Because ... records that the over a period of three years and ten months, the assessee was afforded seven opportunities of being heard but the assessee have failed to avail any of the opportunities. Accordingly, he decided to proceed with the case on the basis of materials on record. He considered

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Kanpur. vs. M/S. Sushrut Institute of Plastic Surgery Private Limited, Lucknow

The appeal of the Department stands dismissed whereas the Cross Objection of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 30/LKW/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. M/S Sushrut Institute Of Plastic Central Circle 2 Surgery Private Limited Kanpur 29, Shahmeena Road Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaics2582G (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.15/Lkw/2023 [Arising Out Of Ita No.30/Lkw/2023] Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S Sushrut Institute Of Plastic V. The Acit Surgery Private Limited Central Circle 2 29, Shahmeena Road Kanpur Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaics2582G (Cross - Objector) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 115BSection 133ASection 142ASection 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 271ASection 36(1)(va)Section 69Section 69A

receipt of the report from the Valuation Officer, the Assessing Officer may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard, take into account such report in making such assessment or re-assessment: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply in respect of an assessment made ... 142A, it is provided that on receipt of the report of the Valuation Officer, the Assessing Officer may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard, take into account such report in making such assessment or reassessment. Would the language of Section 142A mean that before proceeding to call

Shree Siddhi Infrabuild Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1021/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1021/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shree Siddhi Infrabuild Private Limited D-1001, Ganesh Meridian Opp. Kargil Petrol Pump Nr. Gujarat High Court Ahmedabad – 380 060 बनाम / V/S.\The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3 Ambawadi Ahmedabad – 380 014 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aalcs 4509 A (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By : Ms.Shrunjal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.P. Rastogi, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Hereinafter Referred To As “Pcit”) Dated 15/03/2024 Passed U/S.263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") For The

For Appellant: Ms.Shrunjal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 263

fresh assessment order and be compute the disallowance u/s.14A of the Act as per Rule 8D of IT Rules, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Ld.PCIT, the assessee has come in appeal before us. 4. The Ld.AR

Shri Narshinha Mandir Trust, Nashik vs. CIT (Exemp), Pune

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

ITA 948/PUN/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrashri Narshinha Mandir Trust Cit(Exemption), Pune Oppo. Jain Mandir Sinnar, Sinnar, Vs. Nashik – 422013 Pan: Aagts9411F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pramod Shingte Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 31-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-07-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 12ASection 36ASection 36A(3)

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

Century Rayon Education Society, Pune vs. CIT (Exemp), Pune

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

ITA 947/PUN/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

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

For Appellant: Shri S.M. BandiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 13(3)Section 36ASection 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(vi)

matter may be set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) to adjudicate the same afresh on merits after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. The Ld. DR had no objection the above request of the Ld. AR. 7. We have heard

Kalyan Charity Trust, Pune vs. CIT (Exemp), Pune

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

ITA 946/PUN/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

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

For Appellant: Shri S.M. BandiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 80Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(vi)

matter may be set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) to adjudicate the same afresh on merits after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. The Ld. DR had no objection the above request of the Ld. AR. 7. We have heard

Shree Gomtesh Nagari Sah Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Sangli vs. ITO Ward 5., Sangli

ITA 926/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Amol R KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR and Ms
Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to decide the issue afresh 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. 19. In the result

Shree Gomtesh Nagari Sah Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Sangli vs. ITO Ward 5, Sangli

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

ITA 925/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Amol R KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR and Ms
Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

Following similar reasonings, we restore this appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC for fresh adjudication after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 15. Facts of the case, in brief, are that ... file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to decide the issue afresh 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. 19. In the result