← 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

Sharad Goel, Raipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Raipur

ITA 310/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur03 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 310/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Addl/JCIT(A) to revisit the issues, in terms of our observations. 13. Needless to say, the assessee shall be provided with reasonable opportunity of being heard in the set aside appellate proceedings, to which the assessee is directed to comply proactively, failing which the issues may be decided within

Sanjay Kumar Behera, Cuttack vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Cuttack

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

ITA 331/CTK/2025[2017-8]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 Jul 2025

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Pavan Kr. Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek kr Mishra, Sr. DR

natural justice, and remit the matter back to the file of the ld CIT(A) with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, we also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before

Rabindra Garadia, Rayagada vs. Income Tax Officer, Rayagada

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

ITA 326/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumar Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : Assessment Year :2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Trinath Rao, CA

natural justice, and remit the matter back to the file of the ld CIT(A) with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, we also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before

Naresh Kumar Patro Doki, Bhubaneswar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Berhampur.

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

ITA 304/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year :2018-19

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Kr Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 147

Assessment Year :2018-19 the file of the ld CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Similarly, the assessee is directed to furnish all the requisite documentary evidence before the ld CIT(A), failing which, ld CIT(A) is at liberty

Joda Auto Centre, Joda vs. Income Tax Officer, Keonjhar Ward, Keonjhar

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

ITA 299/CTK/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year :2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Chittaranjan Panda, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prateek kr Mishra, Sr. DR

natural justice, and remit the matter back to the file of the ld CIT(A) with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, we also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before

Swarna Prava Biswal, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO Paradeep Ward, Paradeep

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

ITA 296/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year :2018-19

For Appellant: Shri K.K.Bal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prarteek Kr Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 147

order to meet the principle of natural justice, and remit the matter back to his file with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, we also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before

Gayatri Steel, Cuttack vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Cuttack

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

ITA 295/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year :2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Syed Bakiullah, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Kr Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 69A

order to meet the principle of natural justice, and remit the matter back to his file with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, we also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before

Batakrushna Pratihari Through Beneficiary Gita Partihari, Puri vs. Income Tax Officer, Puri Ward, Puri

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

ITA 283/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumar Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : Assessment Year :2017-18

For Appellant: None (written submission)
Section 154

interest of justice, the issues are restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Similarly, the assessee is directed to furnish all the requisite documentary evidence before P a g e 2 | 3 Assessment Year

Sekh Amjad, Khurda vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 251/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumar Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : Assessment Year :2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, Adv

order to meet the principle of natural justice, and remit the matter back to his file with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, we also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co- operate with the proceedings before

Crystal Metal Industries, Alwar vs. ACIT, Alwar

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 908/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Jhanwar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 270ASection 271D

file of ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Office for afresh adjudication in terms of my discussion made needs above. Needless to mention that proper opportunity of being heard should be granted to the assessee. The assessee should also refrain from seeking unnecessary adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective Grounds

Crystal Metal Industries, Alwar vs. ACIT, Alwar

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 907/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Jhanwar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 270ASection 271D

file of ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Office for afresh adjudication in terms of my discussion made needs above. Needless to mention that proper opportunity of being heard should be granted to the assessee. The assessee should also refrain from seeking unnecessary adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective Grounds

Crystal Metal Industries, Alwar vs. ACIT, Alwar

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 906/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Jhanwar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 270ASection 271D

file of ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Office for afresh adjudication in terms of my discussion made needs above. Needless to mention that proper opportunity of being heard should be granted to the assessee. The assessee should also refrain from seeking unnecessary adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective Grounds

Crystal Metal Industries, Alwar vs. JCIT, Central Circle, Jaipur

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 905/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Jhanwar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 270ASection 271D

file of ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Office for afresh adjudication in terms of my discussion made needs above. Needless to mention that proper opportunity of being heard should be granted to the assessee. The assessee should also refrain from seeking unnecessary adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective Grounds

Crystal Metal Industries, Alwar vs. ACIT, Alwar

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 904/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Jhanwar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 270ASection 271D

file of ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Office for afresh adjudication in terms of my discussion made needs above. Needless to mention that proper opportunity of being heard should be granted to the assessee. The assessee should also refrain from seeking unnecessary adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective Grounds

Babu Singh, Shiv vs. ITO, Ward 1 Barmer, Barmer

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

ITA 9/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ld. Cit(A), He Failed To Response On The Date Of Hearing Fixed On 14.07.2023, 22.08.2024 & 06.11.2024. For Such None Appearance & Not Filing Any Reply/Documentary Evidence.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 250(6)

NFAC for necessary adjudication and pass a speaking order as contemplated in section 250(6) of the Act. Needless to mention that proper opportunity of being heard should be granted to the assessee. The assessee should also refer from seeking unnecessary adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds

Amar Singh Sahu, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Office 2(4) Jaipur, Jaipur

ITA 78/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Sushil Kulhari, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 250Section 270ASection 40

department, we deem it a fit case, to remit this issue for determination of the Assessing Officer after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act for Non deduction of TDS on rent paid:- 19. In this assessment order, the Assessing ... result, this issue also deserves to be remitted to the Assessing Officer for decision afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Result 25. In view of the above findings, this appeal is partly allowed, granting relief to the appellant assessee only as regards the first mentioned

Dargah Hazrat Meeran Sahib, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Ajmer

ITA 431/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 429 to 431/JPR/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2018-19 | Dargah Hazrat Meeran Sahib | बनाम | Income Tax Office, | Taragarh Hill Ajmer, | Vs. | Ward-1(1), | Ajmer. | | Ajmer. | स्थायीलेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAAAD5184H | अपीलार्थी / Appellant | प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent | | निर्धनिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby | : Shri Rahul Pandya, Adv. & | | Shri Priyesh Kasliwal, Adv. | राजस्व

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Pandya, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Sushil Kulhari, Addl. CIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

provided, we deem it a fit case to remand all the three matters to the Assessing Officer for decision afresh, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Result 17. As a result, all three appeals are disposed of, for statistical purposes, and the matters are remanded ... Assessing Officer for decision afresh , after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Keeping in view that the Secretary-authorized representative of the appellant remained non compliant before both authorities i.e. Assessing Officer and Learned CIT(A), in respect of all three matters despite repeated opportunities, the appellant

Dargah Hazrat Meeran Sahib, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Ajmer

Appeals are disposed of, for statistical purposes,

ITA 430/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 148

provided, we deem it a fit case to remand all the three matters to the Assessing Officer for decision afresh, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Result 17. As a result, all three appeals are disposed of, for statistical purposes, and the matters are remanded ... Assessing Officer for decision afresh, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Keeping in view that the Secretary-authorized representative of the appellant remained non compliant before both authorities i.e. Assessing Officer and Learned CIT(A), in respect of all three matters despite repeated opportunities, the appellant

Praveen Saxena, Lucknow vs. ITO-6(1), Lucknow-New

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 202/LKW/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow03 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2020-21 Praveen Saxena V. Income Tax Officer 6(1) Flat No.G-01, Tower-J Lucknow - New Shalimar Gallant Vigyanpuri, Mahanagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Ajpps5818N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.02.2024, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 09.01.2021, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.22,57,120/- & Also Claimed Relief Under Section 90 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) For A Sum Of Rs.3,48,632/- Being Foreign Tax Credit. The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Processed The Return Under Section 143(1) Of The Act & Rejected The Relief Of Rs.3,48,632/- Claimed By The Assessee Under Section 90 Of The

For Appellant: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

circumstance of the case, the order of Assessment has been passed in absolute violation of the principles of Natural Justice, without providing adequate opportunity of being heard and therefore deserves to be declared a nullity. 5. The appellant craves for leave to add, modify, amend or delete any other

Prop. R K Agencies Khutar Road Gola Gokaran Nath Distt Lakhimpur Kheri, Gola Gokaran Nath Distt Kheri vs. Prop., ITO Lakhimpur Khei Uttar Pradesh

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 251/LKW/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow03 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2016-17 Priyanka Tiwari V. Income Tax Officer 3(5) Prop. R. K. Agencies Lakhimpur Khutar Road, Gola Gokaran Nath Lakhimpur Kheri Tan/Pan:Amept3933B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R.

For Appellant: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 131Section 69A

circumstance of the case, the order of Assessment has been passed in absolute violation of the principles of Natural Justice, without providing adequate opportunity of being heard and therefore deserves to be declared a nullity. ITA No.251/LKW/2023 Page 4 of 11 5. The appellant craves for leave to add, modify