← All Phrases

“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

Bandi Ramesh Seva Samastha, Hyderabad vs. CIT (Exemptions), Hyderabad

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

ITA 656/HYD/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jul 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

interpreted in a way that is prejudicial to the Trust/Institutions. 3. The CIT(E), Hyderabad failed to issue show cause notice and provide opportunity of being heard regarding delay in filing application before rejecting it and thereby violating principles of natural justice. 4. The CIT(E), Hyderabad failed to consider ... which was till 30.06.2024, as per CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 dated 25.04.2024), and hence not maintainable. The Ld. AR further submitted that no opportunity of being heard was granted to the assessee before rejecting the application. Hence, the Ld. AR prayed before the bench for grant of one more opportunity

Bandi Ramesh Seva Samastha, Hyderabad vs. CIT (Exemptions), Hyderabad

ITA 655/HYD/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jul 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Gurpreet Singh, SR-DR
Section 80G

interpreted in a way that is prejudicial to the Trust/Institutions. 3. The CIT(E), Hyderabad failed to issue show cause notice and provide opportunity of being heard regarding delay in filing application before rejecting it and thereby violating principles of natural justice. 4. The CIT(E), Hyderabad failed to consider

Atchyuta Ramaiah Talluri, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-11(4), Hyderabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 271/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Ms. K. Prabhabati, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Waseem UR Rehman
Section 143(3)Section 69A

purchase of agricultural land. Needless to say, the A.O. shall in the course of the set-aside proceedings afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who shall remain at liberty to substantiate his contentions based on fresh documentary evidence, if any. 19. Resultantly, the appeal

Yedukondalu Katreddy, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-12(1), Hyderabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 163/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri Y.V. Bhanu NarayanaFor Respondent: Shri Waseem UR Rehman
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 69C

directed to frame afresh assessment. Needless to say, the A.O. shall in the course of the set-aside proceedings afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who shall remain at liberty to substantiate his contentions based on fresh documentary evidence, if any. 10 Yedukondalu Katreddy 15. Resultantly

Shaik Mahaboob Basha, Anantapur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Hindupur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 150/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Ms. S. Sandhya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Waseem UR Rehman, Sr
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

therefore, the matter in all fairness be restored to his file with a direction to re-adjudicate the appeal after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7 Shaik Mahaboob Basha 9. Per Contra, Shri Waseem UR Rehman, the learned senior Departmental Representative (for short “Ld. DR”) relied ... based on a speaking order. Needless to say, the CIT(A) shall in the course of the set-aside proceedings, afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who shall remain at liberty to substantiate his contentions based on fresh documentary evidence, if any. 16. Resultantly, the appeal

Nopany Foundation, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Exemption, Kolkata

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

ITA 963/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mrinmay Basak, Sr. DR

hearing. 4. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to 2 ITANo.963/KOL/2025 the assessee. It was the submission that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is an exparte order ... issues in this appeal to the file of Id. CIT(A) for readjudicating the issues on merits after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the ld. CIT(A) in the readjudication proceedings, positively. 7. In the result, appeal

Soumya Paul, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 37(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 961/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mrinmay Basak, Sr. DR

restore the issues to the file of Id. CIT(A) for readjudicating the issues on merits after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the ld. CIT(A) in the readjudication proceedings, positively. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee

Indravati Devi Bagrodia Charitable Trust, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1.1, Exemption, Kolkata

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 491/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: The Itat The Grounds Are Extracted For Reference: “1. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Ao Was Wrong And

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 250

claim of exemption under section 11 of the Act had to be allowed. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submissions it wants to make in support of its grounds of appeal. Accordingly, all the grounds taken

Biprajit Deb, Coochbehar vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Coochbehar

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 442/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the end of relevant assessment year no Notice u/s 142(1) could have been issued by the A.O. calling for the return of income as per the provision of Sec. 142(1)(1) of the Act.

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144ASection 250Section 251(1)Section 69

much as the matter has been remanded back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh assessment, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, we confirm the order of Ld. CIT(A). 3. In result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 07.07.2025 (George

Hifill Tracon Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 386/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Kapil Mandal, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

file the same before the Ld. AO. He requested that the matter may be remanded back to the Ld. AO to grant an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and thereafter make the assessment. The Ld. DR did not oppose the request of the assessee. ITA Nos. 385 & 386/Kol/2025 ... considered that the request of the assessee to set aside the case before the Ld. AO may be allowed so that a proper opportunity of being heard may be provided. Hence, after examining the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order

Hifill Tracon Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC 4(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 385/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year 2016-17 & Assessment Year 2017-18 Hifill Tracon Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, Cc-4(1), Kolkata, 101, Park Street, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Vs Kolkata - 700016 110, Shanti Pally, (Pan: Aaach6815M) Kolkata - 700107 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Kapil Mandal, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

file the same before the Ld. AO. He requested that the matter may be remanded back to the Ld. AO to grant an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and thereafter make the assessment. The Ld. DR did not oppose the request of the assessee. Hifill Tracon ... considered that the request of the assessee to set aside the case before the Ld. AO may be allowed so that a proper opportunity of being heard may be provided. Hence, after examining the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order

Obolombon Social Welfare Association, West Midnapore vs. CIT (Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 38/KOL/2025[--]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

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

Exemption) is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to him for deciding both the applications afresh after granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and considering the reply which may be filed and thereafter he shall pass a speaking order in accordance with

Obolombon Social Welfare Association, West Midnapore vs. CIT (Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 37/KOL/2025[--]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

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

Exemption) is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to him for deciding both the applications afresh after granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and considering the reply which may be filed and thereafter he shall pass a speaking order in accordance with

Calcutta Fruits Company, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 43(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2556/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathancalcutta Fruits Company, Vs Ito Ward-43(1), Kolkata 10A, Madan Mohan Street, Burrabazar, Kolkata Pan No. :Aabfc 9447 J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Mrinmay Basak, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.07.2024, Passed By The Addl./Jcit(A)-2, Ahmedabad, For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. Shri Manoj Kataruka, Ld.Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Mrinmay Basak, Ld. Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Has Filed Additional Grounds On 08.05.2025, Which Reads As Under :- Additional Ground Of Appeal: - 1) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Action Of The Ao To Frame Assessment On Basis Of An Invalid Notice Issued U/S 143(2) Renders The Assessment Framed As Invalid & Bad In Law. The Aforesaid Ground Of Appeal Raised Is Purely Legal Issue Which Goes To The Root Of The Matter & The Same Does Not Require Any Fresh Investigation Into The Fact, Facts Already Being On Record. Further, The Omission To Raise The Additional Grounds Is Neither Wilful Nor Intentional. In View Of The Above, The Aforesaid Additional Grounds May Kindly Be Admitted & Adjudicated While Hearing The Appeal Filed By The Assessee. An Opportunity Of Being Heard Is Prayed For.

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mrinmay Basak, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 148

view of the above, the aforesaid additional grounds may kindly be admitted and adjudicated while hearing the appeal filed by the assessee. An opportunity of being heard is prayed for. 2 ITANo.2556/KOL/2024 4. It was submitted that the additional ground goes to the root of the matter and no fresh ... including the legal issues are restored to the file of Id. Addl./JCIT(A) for readjudication on merits after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to cooperate in the readjudication proceedings, positively in the appellate proceedings. 8. In the result, appeal

M/S. Positive Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 9(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2492/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Sh. George Mathan & Sh. Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68

letters from each of the shareholders explaining source of fund. 3. For that Ld. AO completed the assessment in haste without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard whereas the Show Cause Notice was served upon the appellant on 12.03.2015 wherein the appellant was required to comply within 3 days ... 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 the grounds of appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments and rule

Priya Manjari Todi, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolkata

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

ITA 2427/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mrinmay Basak, Sr. DR

restore the issues to the file of Id. CIT(A) for 2 ITANo.2427/KOL/2024 readjudicating the issues on merits after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard, subject to a payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten Thousand only) by the assessee to the Legal Aid Services, 3rd Floor

Sivakarthick Raman, Madurai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle Madurai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 281/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:281/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Sivakarthick Raman, The Assistant Commissioner Of 5/200, 2Nd Street, Alagupillai Nagar, Vs. Income Tax, T.Pudukudi, International Taxation Circle, Achampathu, Madurai. Madurai – 625 019. [Pan: Ajnpr-3214-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Preeti Goel, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am:

For Appellant: Ms. Preeti Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 15Section 15(1)(a)Section 234BSection 234DSection 5(2)Section 5(2)(a)Section 9(1)(ii)Section 90

pursuance of the aforesaid grounds of appeal, or otherwise, may be thus granted. The Appellant may kindly be given an opportunity of being heard as per the principles of natural justice. All of the above grounds of appeal are without prejudice and notwithstanding each other. The Appellant craves leave

Nrg Foundation, Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

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

ITA 1110/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri J.Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration of the assessee's application in accordance with law, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to cooperate and rectify the procedural lapse, if any, in the application. In view of the above, the appeal

Nrg Foundation, Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

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

ITA 1109/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri J.Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration of the assessee's application in accordance with law, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to cooperate and rectify the procedural lapse, if any, in the application. In view of the above, the appeal

Vellala Krishnanand Arunkumar, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 360/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Ms. Shree Raksha, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 139(4)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)(a)Section 44A

observed at para 5.4 as under: “5.4 Thus, considering the facts of the case, the AO is directed to grant the appellant an opportunity of being heard, in the light of the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court of its own motion V/s CIT 352 ITR 273 and Instructions