“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

Mohan Ramchandani, Banglore vs. ACIT-Intl Tax-2 Ahemdabad, Ahmedabad Gujarat

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

ITA 1944/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2016-17 Mohan Ramchandani Acit-Intl Tax-2 Flat-11001 Boddaballapur Road Vs. Ahmedabad. Presting Monte Carlo Yelahanka Satelite Town So Bangalore North. Pan : Adgpr 0211 D (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Saurabh Gupta, Ar Assessee By : Shri Saresh Kartik Laxmanbhai, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Saresh Kartik Laxmanbhai, Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 54ESection 54FSection 54F(4)

matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for 8 deciding the issue afresh in accordance with law, after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all contentions of both

Sudhir Jaiswal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 37(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 644/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Prabhat Kumar Singh and Shri Anuj Musaddi, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha &

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

grounds taken by the assessee on merit, by passing a speaking order. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission it wants to make in support of its grounds of appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments and rule

Kajla Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society Ltd, Purba Medinipur vs. DCIT, Circle 27(1), Haldia

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

ITA 311/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 80P

Kajla Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society Ltd. CIT(A) and remit the appeal to him to be decided afresh, who shall allow an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and also grant an opportunity of representing the case and be heard to the Ld. AO as per rule

Niranjan Kumar Sharma, Hooghly vs. I.T.O., Ward - 23(1), Hooghly

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 27/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Where Also He Could Only Partially Succeed Since The Ld. Cit(A) Remanded The Matter Back To The File Of Ld. Ao With The Direction To Afford An Opportunity

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

rightly remanded the matter back to the file of Ld. AO for addressing all the grievances of the assessee, after giving an opportunity of being heard. The Ld. DR supported the impugned order. 3. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have also gone through the records before

Keshab Uma Charitable Trust, Gangadharpur vs. CIT (Exemptions), Kolkata

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

ITA 2640/KOL/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishrakeshab Uma Charitable Trust Cit (Exemptions) Village & P.O. Gangadharpur. Vs. Income Tax Office, 10B Dist-Howrah, West Benga Middleton Road, Kolkata- Pin-711302 700071, West Bengal (Pan: Aabtk6300L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Ashis Rastogi, Ar Respondent By : Shri S.B. Chakraborty, Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.07.2025 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit (Exemption) (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit(E)”) Dated 25.09.2024. 02. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Un- Der:

For Appellant: Shri Ashis Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborty, DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

Order on the grounds that the appellant was not granted sufficient time to comply with the queries and was not given any further opportunity of being heard before pass- ing the Rejection Order violating the Principles of Natural Justice.” 03. The brief facts of the case of the assessee ... registration before the ld. CIT (E) as the Ld. CIT(E) has passed the order not on merits but in limine and adequate opportunity of being heard had not been provided to the as- sessee. 06. The ld. DR did not raise any objection to this request. 07. Upon hearing

M/S. Safal Commodeal Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2491/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250

facts. 2. For that the Ld. C.I.T(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex parte without allowing the appellant any proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard. 3. For that the order passed by the Ld. C.I.T (A) is bad in law since the Ld. C.I.T(A) has not decided ... justice, we restore the issues to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudicating the issues afresh after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard, subject to payment of cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) by the assessee to the Legal Aid Services, 3rd Floor

Bibekananda Goswami, Purulia vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(2), Purulia

ITA 2214/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Where The Assessee Could Not Succeed On The Basis Of Following Finding:

Section 115BSection 148Section 250Section 69A

assessee. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and direct the AO to pass a fresh assessment order after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and conducting necessary enquiries as directed by us. 4. In result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Murmu Pankaj Kumar, Bengaluru vs. ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 134/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Sri Balachandran, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R

Section 115BSection 139Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 156Section 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

aside to the file of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Needless to say a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. It is ordered accordingly 9. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hospet vs. Gayatri Pattina Souharda Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha, Hospet

ITA 1078/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Balram R Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

ITA No.1078/Bang/2024 Gayatri Pattina SouhardaSahakari Sangha Niyamitha, Hospet IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A"BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM

Jeevandeep Edumedia Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle CIT-6, Mumbai

In the result, the a In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stands allowed

ITA 2517/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jeevandeep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd., Pr. Cit-6, 1St Floor, Sun Paradise Business 501,5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Plaza, Senapati Bapat Marg, Vs. Maharishi Karve Road, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aabcj 0180 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Parikh

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

this matter and re an enquiry in this matter and re-assess the income after giving an assess the income after giving an opportunity of being heard rtunity of being heard to the assessee.” 3. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee placed reliance on Before

Trans Union Llc, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1441/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri NikhilFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)

collector] of its intention so to do and has allowed the assessee 3[or the deductor] 4[or the collector] a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (4) Where an amendment is made under this section, an order shall be passed in writing by the income-tax authority concerned ... require any long drawn reasoning or analysis to arrive at a decision. Needless to say that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is ordered accordingly. 23. The ld. DR during the course of hearing argued that the jurisdictional High Court has upheld the decision

Trans Union Llc, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1405/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri NikhilFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)

Trans Union Llc, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1404/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri NikhilFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)

collector] of its intention so to do and has allowed the assessee³[or the deductor] ¹[or the collector] a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (4) Where an amendment is made under this section, an order shall be passed in writing by the income-tax authority concerned. [(5) Where ... require any long drawn reasoning or analysis to arrive at a decision. Needless to say that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is ordered accordingly. 23. The ld. DR during the course of hearing argued that the jurisdictional High Court has upheld the decision

Trans Union Llc, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1403/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri NikhilFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)

DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Indusind Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is

ITA 3675/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Kalpexh Unadkat &For Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 35DSection 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

accordance with law keeping in mind the decision of the Special Bench. Needless to say that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is ordered accordingly. ITA No. 3675/Mum/2023 – AY 2018-19- Revenue's Appeal Disallowance of ESOP Expenses – Ground No.1 21. During the year under

Indusind Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. The DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is

ITA 1842/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

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

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 35DSection 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

Arya Gram Vikas Samiti, Teshil Baraut, Baghpat vs. CIT(Exemption), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 675/DEL/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2025

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraarya Gram Vikas Samiti Commissioner Of Income Tax Village & Po Rathora, (Exemption), Teshil Baraut, Baghpat -250617 Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Uttar Pradesh Lucknow Pan: Aacaa4633Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 124(1)(ac)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

rejecting the application for 1 Arya Gram Vikas Samiti registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act without providing the opportunity of being heard in violation of the principle of natural justice. 3) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed ... item (B) of sub-clause (vi) of sub-section (1) of section 12A, rejecting such application, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard;" 9. At the stage of registration under section 12AB(1) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(E), can only examine objects of the trust, genuineness

Parveen Tayal, Faridabad Haryana vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2, Faridabad Haryana

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

ITA 2041/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanparveen Tayal, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 2, H.No.246/G/Ist Floor, Faridabad. Sector 10, Dlf, Faridabad – 121 006 (Haryana). (Pan : Agrpt5617P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2024 Date Of Order : 17.07.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am:

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. A.O. in passing the impugned penalty order without giving adequate opportunity of being heard and in gross violation of principles of natural justice.” 5. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the notice issued under

Shri Shri Triguneshwari Devi Dham Trust, Ajit Vihar Burari vs. CIT(Exemption), Civic Centre

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

ITA 5220/DEL/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Chaudhary, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT DR

registration ex-parte. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we restore the matter to ld. CIT E) and direct him to give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue on merit as per law. We also direct assessee to make proper submissions and appear before

Shri Shri Triguneshwari Devi Dham Trust, Ajit Vihar Burari vs. CIT(Exemption), Civic Centre

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

ITA 5219/DEL/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Chaudhary, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT DR