“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

Daxen Agritech India Pvt. Ltd., Baddi vs. ACIT, Circle, Parwanoo

In the result, all the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 471/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Aman Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, CIT, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80

aside. 9. That the impugned Orders had been passed in gross violation of the principle of natural justice and without allowing reasonable/effective opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 1 0. That the appellant craves to add, amend, or alter grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard

Daxen Agritech India Pvt. Ltd., Baddi vs. ACIT, Circle, Parwanoo

In the result, all the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 470/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

For Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, CIT, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80

aside. 9. That the impugned Orders had been passed in gross violation of the principle of natural justice and without allowing reasonable/effective opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 10. That the appellant craves to add, amend, or alter grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard and disposed

Daxen Agritech India Pvt. Ltd., Baddi vs. ACIT, Circle, Parwanoo

In the result, all the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 469/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

For Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, CIT, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80

aside. 9. That the impugned Orders had been passed in gross violation of the principle of natural justice and without allowing reasonable/effective opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 10. That the appellant craves to add, amend, or alter grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard and disposed

Daxen Agritech India Pvt. Ltd., Baddi vs. ACIT, Circle, Parwanoo

In the result, all the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 468/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Aman Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, CIT, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80

Daxen Agritech India Pvt. Ltd., Baddi vs. ACIT, Circle, Parwanoo

In the result, all the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 467/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Aman Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, CIT, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80

aside. 9. That the impugned Orders had been passed in gross violation of the principle of natural justice and without allowing reasonable/effective opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 10. That the appellant craves to add, amend, or alter grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard and disposed

Aspee Sons, Solan vs. Income Tax Officer, Parwanoo

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for Statistical Purposes

ITA 1168/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1168/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Aspee Sons, The Ito, बनाम Village Kuranwala, Parwanoo Barotiwala, Vs. S.O.Barotiwala (196), Solan 174103 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaqfa1827R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A. राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.07.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.09.2024 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As U

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250bSection 80Section 80I

passed by Ld. AO and then by Worthy CIT(A) deserves to be quashed since the same have been passed without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 5. That the appellant craves leave for any addition, deletion or amendment in the 1168-Chd-2024 Aspee Sons, Solan

Jain Foundation, Secunderabad vs. ITO., Ward-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 336/HYD/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri P Vinod, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 12A

direction to re-consider the application filed by the assessee seeking for registration u/sec.12AB and approval u/sec.80G of the Act, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the 9 ITA.Nos.335 & 336/Hyd./2025 assessee and also consider relevant evidences filed by the assessee in support of it’s application

Jain Foundation, Secunderabad vs. ITO., Ward-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 335/HYD/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri P Vinod, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 12A

Yusuf Seikh, Bardhaman vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Bardhaman

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

ITA 1052/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, Sr.DR

adjournment was asked during the course of appellate proceedings, however, the ld. CIT(A) passed the impugned ex-parte without providing any sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. Ld Sr.DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A). 5. I have considered ... restoring the issues in the appeal to the file of ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating afresh after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee shall cooperate in the readjudication proceeding before the ld. CIT(A) positively. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Trincas Agencies Commerce Pvt. Ltd., Dadar, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Kolkata, West Bengal

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

ITA 1610/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Us, The Ld. Ar Argued On The Merits Of The Case & Assailed The Action Of Ld. Cit(A) In Not Granting The Adjournment For Preparing A Reply Even When The Matter Was Old & Records Had To Be Collected From Various Places.

Section 250Section 69

itself is challenging the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in disposing of the appeal against the assessee without affording him any proper opportunity of being heard. 2. Before us, the Ld. AR argued on the merits of the case and assailed the action

Ideal Educational Trust, Dindigul vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

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

ITA 1338/CHNY/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1338/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2024-25 V. Ideal Educational Trust, The Cit (Exemption), 60 Ssa Nursery & Primary School, Chennai. Salai Street, Vedasandur, Dindigul-624 710. [Pan: Aaati 9859 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr. A. G. Sathyanarayanan, Advocate : ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, Jcit : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing 16.07.2025 : घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 21.07.2025

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

stating that the assessee trust did not respond to the show cause notices issued to verify the details regarding the trust without giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee in violation of principles of natural justice. The ld.CIT(E) while rejecting the application Under Section 80G held as under

Samkit Shashikant Shah, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -20, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3703/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dropping The Reassessment Proceedings.”

Section 148Section 148ASection 148BSection 263

pass speaking assessment order in accordance with the Income Tax act, 1961 by following extant SOPs in this regard after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee.” 7 Samkit Shashikant Shah 9. We have heard both the parties and perused the impugned order as well as the material

Hydroair Tectonics Pcd Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT Central Circle 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1931/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankarhydroair Tectonics Pcd V/S. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Limited, 501, Concord बनाम Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Premises Co-Op Society Ltd., Room No. 804, Pratishtha Plot No. 66A, Sector 11, Cbd Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Belapur –400 614, Road, Mumbai –400 020, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaach9686C Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Kumar Kedia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, (Sr. DR)

Section 144Section 270ASection 40

wrongly and erroneously not considered the genuinity of the reason in delay in filing of appeal and has without giving any opportunity of being heard on the particular subject of delay in filing of appeal, the appellate order has been passed without considering the merit of the case

Surinderkumar Bansilal Sharma, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC-4(1), Mumba

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 6526/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeesurinderkumar Bansilal Sharma Vs Asst. Cit – Central Circle 4(1), 525, Ujaga Niwas, 12Th Road, Mumbai Chembur, Mumbai-400 071 Pan : Aagps8222G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Payal DedhiaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta - CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 250

considered view, it is evident that the appellate order was passed ex parte and that the assessee was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The denial of such opportunity amounts to a violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, we consider it appropriate to restore the matter ... file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication de novo, after granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee shall also be permitted to file any additional evidence relevant to the appeal proceedings. We make no observation on the merits of the case, so as to avoid

Metro Stone Crusher Private Limited, Bhiwani, Haryana vs. ITO Ward 17(1), Delhi

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA No

ITA 897/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sahil, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. DR

submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. We find that the ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue without affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We find that the ld. CIT(A) in his order has stated that notices were issued however, they were ... view that the matter be restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide the issues afresh after allowing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Page 2 of 4 ITA Nos. 2682 /DEL/2023 & 897/DEL/2024 Metro Stone Crusher Vs ITO [A.Ys

Shushil Kumar Gautam, Gabhana Aligarh vs. Assessing Officer 4(1)(1), Aligarh

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

ITA 4/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 115BSection 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 28Section 30Section 44ASection 69A

Rs.83,46,879/- remained unexplained. 3.3. In this regard, the Assessing Officer issued a show-cause notice on 19.02.2023 allowing the assessee opportunity of being heard, on 24.02.2023. The Assessing Officer noted at the concluding session of the assessment, the assessee complied for the first time on 27.02.2023 with ... account of variation in respect of income u/s 28 of the Act back to his file for fresh adjudication after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to appear before the ld. CIT(A). 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Krishna Balram Foundation, Mathura vs. CIT Exemption, Lucknow

ITA 113/AGR/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 12ASection 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH 'DB' AGRA (Through Physical/Virtual Hearing) BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Krishna Balram Foundation, Mathura vs. CIT Exemption, Lucknow

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

ITA 112/AGR/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 12ASection 80G

item (B) of sub-clause (vi) of sub-section (1) of section 12A, rejecting such application, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard;" It is also pertinent to note that no Show Cause Notice was issued by the CIT prior to the rejection of the application ... issued and the replies submitted, are hereby provided. This clearly indicates that no Show Cause Notice was issued, thereby depriving us of the opportunity to be heard. 4. In light of the above concerns, we respectfully submit these precedents before the Hon'ble Tribunal and request that it direct

Khemraj Sinha, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 329/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Raipur18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.329/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Khemraj Sinha Proprietor: Jain Kirana Stores, Ganpat Chowk, Veer Sawarkar Nagar, Raipur-492 001 (C.G) Pan: Bonps5758B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

actions the accused has to meet. This is the very edifice of the principle of natural justice. There is mandatory requirement of reasonable opportunity of being heard. This pre-requires issuance of a proper notice. The authority has to issue Show Cause to the party/assessee to explain and produce evidence

Sanjeev Kumar Azad, Danapur vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Delhi

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

ITA 247/PAT/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.247/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Sanjeev Kr. Azad.………………….....…..…………………....Appellant Flat No.302, Radhe-Krishna Apartment, Goal Road, Danapur, Bihar-801503 [Pan: Aicpa9561G] Vs. Assessment Unit, Nfac, Delhi……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ravi Shankar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 18, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.03.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For A.Y. 2022-23 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.2,50,000. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. The Case Was Subsequently Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass Based On The Reason That Substantial Cash Deposits Had Been Made In The Assessee'S Current Account, Disproportionate To The Returned Income. Notices Under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) Were Issued. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Noted That The

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 250

restore the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to re-adjudicate the issues after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 18th July, 2025. [Rakesh Mishra