“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

House of Humanity Charitable Trust, Vadodara vs. CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 648/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri TR Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kunal Rathod, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-D.R

Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

assessee to rectify the application, if permissible as per the provisions of law. The assessee may also be allowed a proper opportunity of being heard in the matter. The assessee will also be free to make a fresh application under the correct provisions of the Act, if it so desires

House of Humanity Charitable Trust, Vadodara vs. CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 647/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri TR Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kunal Rathod, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-D.R

Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

Discover Joy Foundation, Ahmedabad vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 35/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 35/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: Na Discover Joy Foundation, The Commissioner Of 1103, Ratnakar Caledonia, बनामVs Income Tax(Exemption), . Nr.Balaji Garden Restaurant, Ahmedabad. Nr. Prernatirth Derasar Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aaetd5789R

For Appellant: Shri S.N Divatia, with Shri Samir Vora, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT.DR

Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(ii)

after ensuring that all other conditions as stipulated u/s. 80G(5) of the Act are complied. The assessee may also be allowed an opportunity of being heard in the matter. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open

Shri Gujarat Kadava Patidar Jan Kalyan Trust, Mehsana Gujarat vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1149/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jul 2025

Bench: Your Honor That The Appellant Was Unable To Avail Proper Guidance & Professional Assistance At The Time Of Filing Form 10Ab Under The Relevant Provisions Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. This Lack Of Access To Adequate Professional Support Led To Inadvertent Errors In The Application.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-D.R

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

Action for Impact Foundation, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 649/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.649/Pun/2025 Action For Impact Foundation, Cit, Exemption, Flat No. 408, Gold Croft, Co-Op Hsg Pune Society, Chinchwad Station Road, Vs. Thergaon, B.O. Tanaji Nagar, Pune-411033 Pan : Aavca7643K अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 15-05-2025 Date Of 10-07-2025 Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iv)Section 80G(5)(vi)

same as filed within the prescribed statutory time-limit and decide the same on merits as per facts and law, after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and present its case. Needless to say, the assessee shall provide the requisite support in terms of submitting

Mobite Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. ITO, Ward, 7(1), Pune

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

ITA 1258/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1258/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Mobite Technologies Private V The Income Tax Officer, Limited, S. Ward-7(1), Pune. A-701, Victoria Garden, Nagar Road, Kalyani Nagar, Pune – 411006. Maharashtra. Pan: Aafcm7197J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Abhay Avachat – Ar Revenue By Smt. Shilpa Nc – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 03/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Ld.Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)-10, Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 12.02.2025 For A.Y.2021-22, Emanating From The Order U/S.143(1) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Ao Cpc Has Erred In Rejecting Concessional Rate Of Income Tax Of 22% Adopted By Assessee For Calculation Of Tax Liability As Per Itr U/S 115Baa & The Ld. Cit A Erred In Confirming The Same

Section 115Section 115BSection 115JSection 143Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 250

justified in the facts of the case. 8. The CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal of Assessee without affording adequate opportunity of being heard and also without being heard on merits. Prayer is to direct the JAO to check the applicable provisions and allow concessional rate of income ... assessee prays before your honour to allow it an opportunity of being heard on merits before the lower authorities 10. The Assessee prays for any other relief that may be deemed fit in law and on facts 11. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete, or amend

Athipalli Sai Sravan, Nellore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nellore

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

ITA 644/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Ms. Venkata Suseela, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Gurpreet Singh, SR-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144B

prayed that the delay may be condoned by taking a justice-oriented and liberal approach, so that the assessee is not denied the opportunity of being heard on merits due to the fault of his previous representative. 3.2 Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) objected to the condonation ... parte order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to his file for de novo adjudication, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and granting liberty to file necessary documents and evidences in support of its claim. The assessee is directed to cooperate with

Rainbow Children'S Hospital Foundation, Hyderabad vs. CIT (Exemptions), Hyderabad

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

ITA 314/HYD/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Jul 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Vinod, Advocate appeared for Shri K.A. Sai PrasadFor Respondent: : Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 80G

justify its claim, the matter may be remanded back to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication on merits, after affording proper opportunity of being heard. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and also gone through the record in the light of the submissions made by either side ... deem it appropriate to remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to grant proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee, including the liberty to file any additional evidence in support of its claim of charitable activities. The Ld. CIT(E) shall

Maritime Marketing Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 995/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.995/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Maritime Marketing Private Limited Vs Ito, Ward-1(1), Kolkata 7 Grant Lane, Bow Bazar, Room No.101,1St Floor, Kolkata-700012 Pan No. : Aagcm 9273 L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : Shri Abhishek Bansal, Ar नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Madhumita Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 18.03.2025 In For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. Shri Abhishek Bansal, Ld.Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Smt. Madhumita Das, Ld. Sr.Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. It Was The Submission By The Ld. Ar That The Ld.Ao Has Passed The Assessment Order U/S.144 Of The Act Without Considering The Reply In Regard To His Claim. In The Appellate Proceedings, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Also Passed The Ex-Parte Order. Therefore, The Ld. Ar Prayed That If One More Opportunity Is Provided So That The Assessee Would Be Able To Provide All The Details Before The Ld.Ao. 4. In Reply, Ld. Sr. Dr Supported The Orders Of The Ld. Ao & Ld. Cit(A).

For Respondent: Smt. Madhumita Das, Sr.DR

Section 144

issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld. AO for de novo assessment after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 10/07/2025

Rekha Rani Gupta, Burdwan (East) vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(1), Burdwan

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

ITA 1059/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1059/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2018-2019) Rekha Rani Gupta, Vs Ito, Ward-1(1), Burdwan Hossainpur, Purba Bardhaman Pin-713125 Pan No. : Bxvpg 1588 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Smt. Madhumita Das, Sr.Dr राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 29.02.2024 For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Ld.Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Smt. Madhumita Das, Ld. Sr.Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. It Was The Submission By The Ld. Ar That That The Assessee Had On The Basis Of The Form 26As Filed His Return Of Income. It Was The Submission That In The Form 26As It Was Shown That The Assessee Had Done Certain Contract Work For West Bengal State Electricity Board Burdwan Division. It Was The Submission That, In Fact, The Assessee Had Not Done Any Work. It Was The Submission That The West Bengal State Electricity Board Burdwan Division Had Also Clarified Before The Ao In Response To Notice U/S.133(6) Of The Act That The Assessee Has Not Done Any Work For Them. However, The Ao Added The Total Contract Amount As Shown In The Form 26As As Income

For Appellant: Smt. Madhumita Das, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 140

justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld. AO for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The AO shall consider the revised computation instead of the computation filed by the assessee in his return in view of the decision

Hanumanahalli Kalegowda Mahendra, Kaluvekere Street vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 & Tps Hassan, Hassan

In the result, all the miscellaneous applications of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 37/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore10 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Sriram V Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)

Section 144BSection 254(2)

adjudication. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the details and relevant judicial decisions. It also directed the AO to give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 3. The assessee's grievance is that the AO has started fresh proceedings under section 144B of the Act. According

Annapoorneshwari Family Trust, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri. Shiva Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250

remit this issue back to the file of learned CIT(A) for fresh consideration and learned CIT(A) is directed to give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue as per law. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case with the necessary documents

Rajbhushan Omprakash Dixit, Mumbai vs. Jt. Commissioner (OSD), Central Circle

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 941/MUM/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Rajbhushan Omprakash Dixit, Jt. Commissioner (Osd), 201/12, Jawahar Nagar, Road No. Office Of Cit(A)-48, Vs. 13 Goregaon (West), Mumbai-400052. Mumbai-400062. Pan No. Aacpd 9215 C Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Sankalp Sharma a/w

Section 143(3)Section 153(2)

afre merits, after affording adequate and reasonable opportunity of merits, after affording adequate and reasonable opportunity of merits, after affording adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. being heard to the assessee. 4.2 Ordered accordingly. Ordered accordingly. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Nirmalkumar Heeralal Jain, Mumbai vs. Duputy Commissioner of Income Tax 27(2), Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 1521/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Sumit Mantri, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Ld. Sr. A.R

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

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 clarify that the Assessee would be at liberty to raise all legal grounds as emanates from the proceedings carried

India Fruit Company, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

ITA 5249/DEL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraindia Fruit Co. Vs. Ito, Ward 36(2) C-547, New Subzi Mandi, New Delhi Azadpur, Azad Pur, Delhi – 110033 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabfi0595B Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Nanda, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

matter, we are of the considered opinion that in order to prevent the miscarriage of justice the assessee be given a further opportunity of being heard by the Ld. CIT(A) afresh on merit. Thus, with the aforesaid observation this appeal is dispose of by remitting the issue ... India Fruit Co. (AY: 2017-18) consideration afresh in accordance with law upon granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and upon considering the evidence on record or any other evidence which the assessee may choose to file at the time of hearing of the appeal

Sincerely Finance & Investment Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward- 23(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 8728/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Sh. Pranav Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 68

order. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in passing order without providing proper opportunity of being heard. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by CIT (A) is against the principles ... also, during appellate proceedings, neither any authorized person has attended nor any further details have been filed by appellant company, despite allowing opportunity of being heard in that regard, so as to justify its claim that no additions needed to be made in appellant's present case. Therefore, considering

Dharemendra Singh, Dehradun vs. ITO, W-2(1)(4), Rudrapur

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

ITA 6/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)

support of his claim and A.O. shall verify the documents and frame the assessment order afresh. Needless to say, the A.O. shall provide opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before passing the assessment order in accordance with law. The Revenue shall communicate the Assessee at the address mentioned

Parag Negi, U.S.Nagar vs. ITO, Kashipur

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

ITA 56/DDN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

present Appeal. 2 ParagNegi Vs. ITO 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 appeal of the Assessee. 4. Per contra ... with a direction to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the Appeal afresh 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 on 09th July

Sh.Ravinder Kumar, Dehradun vs. ITO, Dehradun

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

ITA 52/DDN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 144Section 147

restore the issue to the file of the A.O. for de-novo assessment. Needless to say, the A.O. shall provide opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before passing the assessment order in accordance with law. The Assessee is also directed to participate in assessment proceedings without fail

M/S Kumaon Mandal Vikash Nigam Ltd., Nanital vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Nanital

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 44/DDN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274(1)

should not be made u/s 271 (1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. If you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity of being heard in person or through authorized representative, you may show cause in writing on or before the said date which will be considered before