“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

Shri Siddhachakra Vardhman Tap Jain Ayambilkhata, Mumbai vs. ITO Centrlized Processing Centre, 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 3152/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

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

Shiv Parvati Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 22(3)(1), 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 2845/MUM/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shiv Parvati Co-Operative Housing Ito Ward 22(3)(1), Society Ltd., Piramal Chamber, Vs. 14Th Road, Khar West, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400052. Pan No. Aadas 1163 J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Kukreja, CAFor Respondent: 25/06/2025

Section 154Section 234ASection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

being u/s. 154 or 143[1] and not granting an opportunity of being u/s. 154 or 143[1] and not granting an opportunity of being heard before passing heard before passing the order. 2. We have heard the rival submissions advanced by the learned We have heard the rival submissions

Katran Real Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 1(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee stands Partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2514/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 51

filing both the present appeals before this Tribunal stands condoned. 4. On merits it is noted that Ld.CIT(A) didn’t give sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee in the interest of the justice we remit this issue back to the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to pass ... detailed order on merits. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee in accordance’s with law. The assessee has also directed to furnished all relevant documents/evidences in support of its 4 ITA No. 2514/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2011-12 Katran Real Private Limited claim

M/S. Manav Memorial Trust, Mumbai vs. Commissionero of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2445/MUM/2025[N.A ]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Ld. Sr. A.R

Section 12ASection 253(3)Section 80G(5)(v)

impugned order and consequently remanding the case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by 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 aforesaid terms

M/S. Manav Memorial Trust, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2444/MUM/2025[N.A ]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Ld. Sr. A.R

Section 12ASection 253(3)Section 80G(5)(v)

The Bombay Motor Mer Ass Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward -5(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals under consideration are allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms

ITA 2438/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

For Appellant: Shri Liladhar Pansania, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Ld. Sr. A.R

Section 147Section 250

inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say,by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. Thus, it is ordered accordingly. 9. Coming to ITA No.2438/M/2024, in view of our judgment in ITA No.2437/M/2024, this case

The Bombay Motor Mer Ass. Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 5(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals under consideration are allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms

ITA 2437/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

For Appellant: Shri Liladhar Pansania, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Ld. Sr. A.R

Section 147Section 250

Nutrica Foundation, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2253/MUM/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2025-26 & Assessment Year: 2025-26

For Appellant: Shri M.M. Agarwal, Ld. C.A. &For Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, Ld. D.R

Section 11Section 11(1)(c)Section 12ASection 80G

aside and consequently the case is remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say while affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. The Assessee is directed to amend/modify the respective clauses within one month from the date of receipt of this order

Nutrica Foundation, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2252/MUM/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2025-26 & Assessment Year: 2025-26

For Appellant: Shri M.M. Agarwal, Ld. C.A. &For Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, Ld. D.R

Section 11Section 11(1)(c)Section 12ASection 80G

Satyajeet Gajendra Dali, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chamber

ITA 1582/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Meet JimudiyaFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary

Section 250

and/or on facts in passing a hurried Order (DIN: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/107907002(1)) u/s 250 Dated 06.01.2025 without (a) giving proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard, (b) without verifying facts and submissions made and (c) Video Conference opportunity. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-NFAC erred

Sandesh Kanhaiyalal Chandak, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 16(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1487/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2016-17 Sandesh Kanhaiyalal Chandak, Dcit, Circle-16(3), A-1902, Siddhivinayak Tower, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp. Phonix Hospital, Vs. Maharshi Karve Road, Chikuwadi, Borivali, Mumbai-400020. Maharashtra-400092. Pan :Actpc7536L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Swapnil Choudhary

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263

challenged the action of the Ld.CIT(A) in failing to consider that the AO has passed the assessment order without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard. Similarly, in Ground No. 3, the assessee has challenged the action of the Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the action of the AO in absence

Bai Fulkore Fakirchand Me Mchand Trust, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 1430/MUM/2025[N.A]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: N.A.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Ld. Sr. A.R

Section 12A

inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 4. We also direct the Assessee to comply with notice(s) to be issued by the Ld. Commissioner and file

Bridge Datacentres (Mumbai ) Private Limited (Formerly Know As Bridge Datacentres(Mumbai) LLP), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 15(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1425/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2023-24

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Ld. AR

Section 250

compliance”, the case is remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision on merit, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 3. In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court

Niyaz E Hussain Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Exemption, Mumbai

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

ITA 1402/MUM/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2025-26

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Ld. Sr. A.R

Section 12A

Vidarbha Mining Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1265/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms. Padmavathy S., Am Vidarbha Mining Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income 703, Samarpan Complex, Near Mirador Tax, Circle-1(3)(2), Mumbai Room No. 540, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Hotel, New Link Road, Chakala, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400099. Vs. Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Rd, New Marine Lines, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aaccv2506M (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Gaurav Kabra Respondent By : Shri. G. J. Ninawe, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A) For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal & Has Also Filed Additional Grounds Which Are As Follows: Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Learned Assessing Officer In Reopening The Assessment U/S.147 Of The Act, Without Appreciating The Fact & Circumstances Of The Case. Vidarbha Mining Private Limited Vs. Dy. Cit

For Appellant: Shri. Gaurav KabraFor Respondent: Shri. G. J. Ninawe, SR. DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 68

account Slump sale, as alleged Short Term Capital gain, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred ... Rangoli Plaza Private Limited as alleged Unexplained Cash Credit, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Additional Grounds of appeal: Filing of Additional Ground in addition and without prejudice and in addition to grounds raised

Shiv Pratap Singh Kunwar, Uttar Pradesh vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Circle 1(1)(1) Meerut, Range-14, Uttar Pradesh

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

ITA 85/DEL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Shiv Pratap Singh Kunwar, Vs Jurisdictional Assessing 508, Begum Bagh, Meerut, Officer, Circle-1(1)(1), Uttar Pradesh-250001 Range-14, Meerut, Pan-Afmpk3273Q Uttar Pradesh-250001 Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Hemant Jain, Adv. Respondent By Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.07.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.11.2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2018-19/10029654 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Engaged In The Business Of Security Agency. The Appellant Filed His Return Of Income On 17.08.2020, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 46,84,309/- & The Same Was Assessed U/S 143(1) On 11-12-2020 At The Income Of Rs.87,33,921/- Wherein The Cpc Made The Disallowance On Account Of Delayed Payment Of Employees Contribution Towards Pf/Esi U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Act. 3. Against This Order, The Assessee Preferred Appeal Before Ld.Cit(A) Who Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Vide Impugned Order Dated 29.11.2023 Thus, The Assessee Is In Appeal Before Us.

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

payment of salary under the respective Act and decide the matter in accordance with law. The AO is further directed to provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 11. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court

Ram Kishan, Hisar Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Hisar

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 654/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraram Kishan Vs. Ito, 613/8, Near Uttam Income Tax Department, Dharmashala Jahaj Pul Hisar, Haryana Chowk Hisar 125001 Haryana – 125001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acfpk1626B Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Jitender Wadhwa, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

very threshold of the second round of litigation before him and to proceed further strictly in accordance with law upon granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and upon considering the P a g e | 3 Ram Kishan (AY: 2013-14) evidence on record or any other evidence

Apsara Oswal, Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi

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

ITA 580/DEL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Pareekassessment Year : 2019-20

Section 144Section 144C(3)Section 250

aside the entire matter back to the file of the AO for denovo assessment on merits in accordance with law, after providing proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after considering all the evidences/documents as may be submitted by the assessee during denovo assessment. We clarify that

Lalaji Propmart, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-5, Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 397/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 397/Del/2025 (A.Y 2022-23) Lalaji Propmart Vs Dcit G-04, First Floor, Hauz Khas Ara Building, Market, South West Delhi Jhandewalan Extension, Pan: Aacfl6325R Delhi Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Pranav Yadav, Adv Revenue By Ms.Pooja Swaroop, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 30/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/07/2025

Appeal. 2 Lalaji Prompart Vs. DCIT 3. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has provided no opportunity of being heard to the Assessee and in violation of principals of natural justice, dismissed the first appeal of the Assessee. 4. Per contra ... with a direction to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the Appeal afresh on its merits in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 6. In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court

Agile Manufacturing Services P Ltd, Haryana vs. ITO Ward-1(3), Gurgaon

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 392/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 392/Del/2025 (A.Y 2023-24) Agile Manufacturing Services Vs Ito Private Limited, 990, Sector-38, Ward 1(3) Gurgaon, Haryana 122018, Haryanagurgaon, Haryana Pan: Aatca9486A Appellant Respondent Assessee By None Revenue By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/07/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm:

Section 143(1)Section 80I

with a direction to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the Appeal afresh on its merits in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 6. In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court