← 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

Sisters of Our Lady of Fatima Pargi, Vikarabad vs. CIT(Exemptions), Hyderabad

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

ITA 712/HYD/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Narender Kumar Naik
Section 12A

application Form No. 10AB, is different from the one used by the Ld. CIT(E). Due to this, the assessee was denied effective opportunity of being heard during the registration proceedings, which is in violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play ... fresh adjudication. The Ld. CIT(E) is directed to provide the ITA No.712/Hyd/2025 6 assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to allow filing of necessary documents and submissions in support of the application. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order

Param Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. CIT(Exemption), Hyderabad

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

ITA 648/HYD/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri H. Srinivasulu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Narender Kumar Naik
Section 12A

application Form No. 10AB, is different from the one used by the Ld. CIT(E). Due to this, the assessee was denied effective opportunity of being heard during ITA No.648/Hyd/2025 6 the registration proceedings, which is in violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, in the interest of justice ... file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The Ld. CIT(E) is directed to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to allow filing of necessary documents and submissions in support of the application. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

M/S. Lookline Vincom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 6(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 461/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Income Tax Officer-6(2), Ward 6(2), M/S Lookline Vincom Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, 14-C, M.D. Road, 4 Th Floor, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Kolkata-700007 Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccl2244C

For Appellant: Shri Monaj Kataruka, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Ranu Biswas, DR
Section 148Section 148ASection 68

offered to tax. Thereafter, it was stated that the assessee M/s Lookline Vincom Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 2018-19 was allowed an opportunity of being heard as per the provisions of Section 148A(b) of the Act with prior approval of the competent authority, wherein the assessee was given a show ... above grounds. 6.1.2. The above ground pertains to 148A. On examining Order u/s 148A(d), it is seen that an opportunity of being heard was granted to the appellant by issue of notice u/s 148A(b) dated 17.03.2022, as per which a Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellant

Aristro Fincorp Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 4(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 213/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 147

interest of natural justice and fairplay and direct the appellate authority to decide the same after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced in the open court on 30th July

Spice Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT (OSD), Ward-1(3), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2428/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2428/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Spice Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd.……...……..…………………....Appellant Dc-9/28, Shastri Bagan, Deshbandhu Nagar, W.B. – 700059. [Pan: Aapcs1202G] Vs. Acit (Osd), Ward-1(3), Kolkata.………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manas Mondal, Acit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 24, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 30, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.01.2023 Passed By The Nfac [In Short Cit(A)] Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 616 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition Explaining The Reasons Or Such Delay. After Considering The Submissions & Materials On Record, We Are Satisfied That There Was Reasonable Cause For The Delay In Filing The Appeal. Accordingly, The Said Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68

matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to re-examine the issue afresh after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and to decide the appeal on merits of the case. We direct the assessee to comply all notices during the remand

Shri Guru Gajadandeshwara Charitable Trust, Devarabhupur, Lingasagur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exemption, Exemption Ward-1, Kalburgi

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

ITA 502/BANG/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: Na Shri Guru Gajadandeshwara Charitable Trust 1 Devarabhupur Post Devabhupur Cit (Exemption) Lingasugur Vs. Ward-1 Raichur 584 139 Kalburgi Karnataka Pan No : Aazts9450P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Ramanagowda S Gowdari, A.R. Respondent By : Sri Sridhar E., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 15.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Exemption) Dated 26.9.2024 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Exm/F/Exm45/2024-25/1069118346(1) Cancelling The Approval U/S 80G Of The Act Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sri Ramanagowda S Gowdari, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sridhar E., D.R
Section 253(5)Section 80G

assessee Trust filed form no.10AB. dated 31.3.2024 for final approval u/s 80G(5) of the Act and accordingly, the assessee was granted opportunity of being heard vide notices dated 25.7.2024 and 14.8.2024, wherein the assessee was required to appear before CIT(Exemptions) along with documents/details however the assessee ... Gajadandeshwara Charitable Trust, Raichur Page 10 of 10 consideration and to decide the same in accordance with law. Needless to say, a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the proceedings before the ld. CIT(E) and file

Dharmalingam, Mysore vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1) & Tps, Mysore

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

ITA 271/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri R. Chandrashekhar, ARFor Respondent: Shri N. Balusamy, JCIT-DR
Section 144

orders of the lower authorities and remit the same to the file of the AO for denovo consideration, after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Page 4 of 4 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

Thotli Ramakrishnappa Ananthkumar, Kolar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kolar

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

ITA 240/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19 Thotli Ramakrishnappa Ananthkumar Nanjundeswara Complex Kolar Road Ito Vs. Malur 563 130 Ward-1 Kolar District Kolar Karnataka Pan No : Aelpa8287J Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri R. Chandrashekar, A.R. Respondent By : Sri E. Shridhar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 06.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025

For Appellant: Sri R. Chandrashekar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri E. Shridhar, D.R
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 68

dispute to the file of AO for fresh consideration and to decide the same in accordance with law. Needless to say, a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the proceedings before the AO and file the relevant

B M Venkataraman Gowda L/H of Late B M Chandregowda, Kolar vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Bangalore

ITA 1473/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. Chaitanya V. Mudrabettu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 156Section 234A

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

B M Venkataraman Gowda L/H of Late B M Chandregowda, Kolar vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Bangalore

ITA 1472/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 156Section 234A

IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

B M Venkataraman Gowda L/H of Late B M Chandregowda, Kolar vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1470/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. Chaitanya V. Mudrabettu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

directed to pay the cost to the Revenue before taking up the caseby the learned CIT(A) is directed to give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue as per law, assessee is directed to represent his case before the learned

B M Venkataraman Gowda L/H of Late B M Chandregowda, Kolar vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Bangalore

ITA 1469/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 156Section 234A

IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

B M Venkataraman Gowda L/H of Late B M Chandregowda, Kolar vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Bengaluru

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1468/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. Chaitanya V. Mudrabettu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

directed to pay the cost to the Revenue before taking up the caseby the learned CIT(A) is directed to give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue as per law, assessee is directed to represent his case before the learned

Siddiq Hussain Delvi, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2374/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Siddiq Hussain Delvi No.127 L. No.1St Floor 6Th Street, Oph Road Shivaji Nagar Vs. Ito Ward 1(2)(2) Bengaluru 560 051 Bengaluru Pan No : Aveps62323P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Phani Kumar, A.R. Respondent By : Sri Ashwin D Gowda, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025

For Appellant: Sri Phani Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ashwin D Gowda, D.R
Section 226(3)Section 250Section 253(5)

assessee is restored to the file of AO for denovo adjudication in accordance with law. Needless to say a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to produce all the necessary documents/ evidences/ information in support of his claim and shall

Vichita Traders, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 28(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3786/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Ramchandran, A/RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. D/R

appeal. The ld. CIT(A) is directed to consider the cause for delay and decide the appeal afresh after affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to assessee. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 30th July

Vinay Arun Joshi, Thane vs. PCIT Central Mumbai-1, Mumbai

ITA 3721/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Satish R. ModyFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 48

passed by the AO without making the required inquiries and verifications. However before processing and proceeding further u/s 263 of the Act, an opportunity of being heard is given to the you the assessee firm to explain, along with the evidence, as and if any, as to why the action ... stated at the beginning of this notice either in person or through your authorized representative. If you do not wish to avail the opportunity of being heard, you may send/submit your written submissions, which will be duly considered before passing order u/s 263 of the Act.” 4. In response

M/S. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3709/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 156

impugned assessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on the ground that the same was passed without providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, since the main grounds raised by the assessee against the issuance of demand notice u/s. 156 of the Act dated

Ms. Mita Bimol Kristo Mittra, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 23(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3536/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ms. Mita Bimol Kristo Mittra, The Ito Ward 23(2)(3), 501, 84, Dheeraj Arcade, Pali Room No. 110, 1St Floor, Matru Vs. Naka, Bandra West, Mandir Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400050. Mumbai-400 007. Pan No. Ahapm 5920 C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DRFor Respondent: None
Section 144

directed to pass a speaking order after affording a reasonable and su order after affording a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of fficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant. being heard to the appellant. Without prejudice to the above : Without prejudice to the above : B) Not adjudicating on the ground

Kailash Nath Vishwanath Sharma, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax 27(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3388/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Bharat L. GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi,Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 41(1)

deem it appropriate to remand the instant case to the file of the AO for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee and by taking into consideration the additional evidences to be filed by the Assessee as filed before

Shri Siddhachakra Vardhman Tap Jain Ayambilkhata, Mumbai vs. Income Tax CPC, Centralized, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for stati...

ITA 3153/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Sanghvi

adequate including the issue of condonation of delay, after affording adequate including the issue of condonation of delay, after affording adequate and effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee. and effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee. and effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee