“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

M/S. Trac Media Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Corp. Circle-20(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 1305/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1305/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1306/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2016-17 M/S.Trac Media Pvt Ltd., Assistant Commissioner Of No.35, 3Rd Main Road, Income Tax, Kalaimagal Nagar, Corporate Circle-20(1), Ekkattuthangal, Chennai. Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aadct4184G] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri D.Anand, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, Cit(Virtual) & Ms.V.Supraja, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri D.Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CIT(Virtual) &

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 56

outset the Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that both the lower authorities have passed ex-parte orders without giving due opportunity of being heard. The assessee was stated to be engaged in the business of running a TV Channel. It was submitted that the Ld.AO had passed the assessment order ... Apex Court in the case of TIN box 249 ITR 216. The Ld. AO Page - 4 - of 8 ITA Nos.1305 & 1306/Chny/2025 shall give opportunities of being heard to the assesse and it shall be bounden upon the assesse to comply with the notices issued

Kongu Welfare Trust, Villupuram vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-1, Chennai

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

ITA 1298/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1298/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Kongu Welfare Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.2/1, Vijayapuram Iind Street, Exemptions Ward 1, Chinnasalem – Tk, Villipuram, Chennai. Villupuram 606 201. [Pan:Aactk2793E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Mudit Bohra, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.03.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Raised 6 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is 2

For Appellant: Shri Mudit Bohra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.CIT

Section 10Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 164(2)Section 2(15)

treat the assessee as an AOP in the absence of registration under section 12A of the Act by affording an 5 I.T.A. No.1298/Chny/25 opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, the appeal filed

Ss74 Salem Steel Plant Employee Co-Op Stores Ltd., Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 1293/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1290/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1291/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1292/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1293/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2017-18

For Appellant: S/Shri Senthil Kumar & S.BhupendranFor Respondent: Ms.V.Supraja, Addl.CIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153(2)Section 271(1)Section 271BSection 68

/Chny/2025 assessment, in accordance with law particularly the conditions prescribed in section 153(2) of the Act. The Ld. AO shall give due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall comply with all the statutory notices issued by the Ld.AO. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal raised ... passing a speaking order. To the extent the order of lower authorities on this issue stands set aside. The Ld. AO shall give opportunities of being heard to the assesse and it shall be bounden upon the assesse to comply with the notices issued

Ss74 Salem Steel Plant Employee Co-Op Stores Ltd., Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 1292/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: S/Shri Senthil Kumar & S.BhupendranFor Respondent: Ms.V.Supraja, Addl.CIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153(2)Section 271(1)Section 271BSection 68

Ss74 Salem Steel Plant Employee Co-Op Stores Ltd., Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 1291/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: S/Shri Senthil Kumar & S.BhupendranFor Respondent: Ms.V.Supraja, Addl.CIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153(2)Section 271(1)Section 271BSection 68

Ss74 Salem Steel Plant Employee Co-Op Stores Ltd., Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 1290/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: S/Shri Senthil Kumar & S.BhupendranFor Respondent: Ms.V.Supraja, Addl.CIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153(2)Section 271(1)Section 271BSection 68

Marathwada Nagari Sahakari Path Sanstha Maryadit, Kalyan vs. Assessing Officer, Ward 1(1), Kalyan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3346/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Prabhash Shankarmarathwada Nagari Sahakari V/S. Assessing Officer, Ward – Path Sanstha Maryadit, बनाम 1(1), Mohan Plaza, Wayle Shop No. 06, 1St Floor, Nagar, Khadakpada, Kalyan Dhamnikar Plaza, Bhiwandi, – 421301, Maharashtra Thane – 421302, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaam9150E Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Sushant Alme, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, (CIT- DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

claimed by the assessee u/s 80P(2) of the Act and pass the assessment order afresh after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to it. 4. Before us, the ld.CIT(DR) has relied on the revision order while the ld.AR has vehemently agitated the action of the ld.PCIT inter

Veej Company Sevakanchi Sahakari Path Sanstha Ltd., Kalyan vs. Assessing Officer, Ward 3(1), Kalyan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3341/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Prabhash Shankarveej Company Sevakanchi V/S. Assessing Officer, Ward – Sahakari Path Sanstha बनाम 3(1), Rani Mansion, 2Nd Ltd.,Shramik Sahakar, Usha Floor, Kalyan Murbad Road, Sankul Valiper Road, Oak Thane - 421 301, Baug, Thane - 421301, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaam2266M Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Sushant Alme,ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna (CIT - DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

under section 56 of the Act under the head “Income from other sources” and pass the assessment order afresh after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. Before us, the ld.CIT(DR) has relied on the revision order while the ld.AR has vehemently agitated the action

Gaud Brahman Sabha, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3256/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

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

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

Ld.CIT(exemption) to consider the claim of assessee in accordance with law and to passed a order on merit by granting proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee Accordingly the grounds raised by the assessee is allowed. In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order

Sanvedna Educational and Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO, Exemption, Ward, Thane

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

ITA 2610/MUM/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kuamr Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Jha, Adv &

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

made by it so as to bring to tax the net surplus for the year. Needless to say that assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard and make any other submission as required to substantiate its claim. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Sohag Dilip Kapadia, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(1), Piramal Chambers

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2547/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kuamr Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69

facts and circumstances, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the order without providing proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Said addition opportunity of being heard and violating the principles of natural justice. 2) Ground No.2: Denial of Condonation of Delay On facts and circumstances ... condonation of delay in appeal. Said denial is bad in law and additions are liable to be deleted as order is passed without opportunity of being heard and violating the principles of natural justice. 3) Ground No.3: Addition u/s 69 of Rs. 95,98,600/- On facts and circumstances

Snehasadan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 2(3), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2525/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kuamr Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

considering the issue on merits in accordance with law. Needless to say that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is ordered accordingly. 5. In result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court

Nirmala Nawal Phatarphekar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle 19(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2516/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 143(1)Section 250

Supreme Court as follows: Under section 254, the Tribunal may after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit. The power of the Tribunal in dealing with appeals is, thus, expressed in the widest possible terms. The purpose

Hdfc Bank Ltd (Successor to Hdfc Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1828/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhrihdfc Bank Limited Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of (As Successor To Housing Income-Tax-2(3)(1), Mumbai Development Corporation Room No.552, Aaykar Bhavan Finance Limited), M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Hdfc Bank House, Corporate Tax Department, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan: Aaach2702H Applicant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri J.D. MistriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 37(1)

directed to verify the claim and decide the issue in accordance with law, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.1828/Mum/2025 is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 18th day of July

Bharat Bijlee Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - 6(1)(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1531/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kuamr Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify

Hercules Hoists Limited, Raigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 5445/MUM/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi

Section 22Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(c)

Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tip Top Typography (supra). Needless to add the assessee should be granted adequate opportunity of being heard. Hercules Hoists Limited vs. Dy. CIT 10. As could be seen from the above observations of the co-ordinate bench, a clear direction was given

Hercules Hoists Limited, Raigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 5444/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi

Section 22Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(c)

Hercules Hoists Limited, Raigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 5443/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi

Section 22Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(c)

Hercules Hoists Limited, Raigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 5442/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi

Section 22Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(c)

Pritam Kumar, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 19(1), Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1131/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 151ASection 69

case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in passing the order without giving assessee an opportunity of being heard in violation of the principle of natural justice. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming