“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. Pricewaterhousecoopers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, we are here angry the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2600/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250

good identifiers, the appeal filed vide appeal filing Acknowledgement No. 166286041030516 against the order dated 31/03/2016 is to be decided after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence all the grounds of appeal are allowed, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby set aside

M/S. Pricewaterhousecoopers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, we are here angry the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2599/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250

Johnson Paul Irene Paul, Hosur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Hosur

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

ITA 1230/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1230/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Johnson Paul Irene Paul, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Plot No. 143, Sipcot Staff Housing Ward 1, Colony, Mookandapalli, Hosur. Hosur 635 126. [Pan:Abcpi4853J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 334 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(3)

interest of natural justice, we direct the ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and adjudicate the issues on merits by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is at liberty to file the details and documentary evidences to substantiate his case before

Banumathy Educational Service Trust, Thanjavur vs. ITO, Exemptions, Ward, Trichy

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

ITA 1228/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1228/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Banumathy Educational Service Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Best Matriculation School, Mariamman Exemptions Ward, Koil Road, Bye Pass Rountana, Trichy. Thanjavur 613 001. [Pan:Aabtb6646G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10.01.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 30 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(3)

furnished by the Assessing Officer with the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) shall pass order in accordance with law by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is at liberty to furnish the documentary evidences and explanation to substantiate its case before

Eeswara Seva Samithi, Davanagere vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption, (Exemptions Ward -1), Hubballi

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

ITA 396/BANG/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2025-26 Eeswara Seva Samithi 868/1, Balaji Tractors Pb Road Shankar Vihar Extension Ito (Exemptions Ward 1) Vs. Davanagere 577 006 Hubballi Karnataka Pan No : Aabte2673E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Sri Ramanagowda S Gowdar, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das, D.R

Section 11Section 12A

deemed fit for the purpose of establishing the genuineness of the activity carried on by the trust. 7.5 Needless to say, a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to produce/submit all the necessary details/documents/records/ financials/reports etc in support

Samskruthi Educational Trust, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemption), Bangalore

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

ITA 2373/BANG/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : Na

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan, CIT-DR

Section 12A

dispute to the file of the Ld.CIT(E) to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law. 7.2 Needless to say reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to produce/submit all the necessary details/documents/records/ financials/reports etc in support of its claim

Income-Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Bangalore Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 2347/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.R

Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

ITA Nos.2347 & 2348/Bang/2024 & CO Nos.4 & 5/Bang/2025 M/s. Bangalore Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., Bangalore “A”BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM

Shree Gurumalleshwara Hiriya Nagarikara Seva Samithi (R), Nanjanaguru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mysore

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

ITA 2292/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Vageesh Hegde, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR

Section 147Section 148

Ld.CIT(A) and remit the issue to its file to decide the issue afresh and in accordance with law after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open

Power Research and Development Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 3(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the additional ground is allowed

ITA 1100/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Pai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

provisions of sec. 143(1) of the Act that no adjustment can be made to the total income of the assessee unless an opportunity of being heard is given to the assessee either in writing or in electronic form. In the present case, it is an admitted position that

Protean E Gov Technologies Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 976/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 14ASection 40

merits of the issues we are of the view that the to met ends of justice it would be necessary to provide fair opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 3.1 Therefore, the present appeal is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication by providing

Ashutosh Girish Bharkhada, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 41(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 929/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 17(1)

back to the Ld.AO to verify. The claim of assessee having regards to the evidences filed by him. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. Accordingly the grounds raised by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. In the result the appeal

Shri Khandeshwar Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 27(3)(1), Mumbai, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 487/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Khandeshwar Sahakari Income Tax Officer-27(3)(1), Patsanstha Ltd. Mumbai C/O. Shantaram Jagtap, Ravji Sojpal Vs. 422, 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, Chawl No. 7, Room No.18, T.J. Vashi Railway Station Road, Sewri, Mumbai-400015 Complex, Vashi, Mumbai- 400703 Pan No. Abyfs 0132 L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Kumar KaleFor Respondent: Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

novo adjudication on all issues raised in the appeal, in accordance with law. The assessee shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to place all relevant material on record in support of its contentions.. The ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly

Tejibai Educational Society, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 4147/MUM/2025[N.A]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

For Respondent: Mr. K. Gopal, Adv. a/w

Section 12A

neither examined the matter o CIT(E) neither examined the matter objectively nor granted an bjectively nor granted an opportunity of being heard before arriving at the adverse finding. opportunity of being heard before arriving at the adverse finding. opportunity of being heard before arriving at the adverse finding. Additionally ... after affording an effective application in accordance with law, after affording an effect application in accordance with law, after affording an effect opportunity of being heard. The Ld. CIT(E) shall also consider opportunity of being heard. The Ld. CIT(E) shall also consider opportunity of being heard

The Indian Hume Pipe Co Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3262/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3261/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2020-21) & आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3262/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2021-22) The Indian Hume Pipe Co. V/S. Pcit, Mumbai-1 Ltd. बिाम Room No. 330, 3 Rd Floor, 2Nd Floor, Construction Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Expenses, Walchand Road, Mumbai, Hirachand Marg, Ballard Maharashtra-400020 Estate, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaact4063D Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri S. C. Tiwari & Ms. Navya Chilukumari राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Mr. R. A. Dhyani

For Appellant: Shri S. C. Tiwari & Ms. NavyaFor Respondent: Mr. R. A. Dhyani

Section 143(3)Section 263

grounds of appeal: AY 2020-21 1. That the impugned order is void-ab-initio as having been made without granting the mandatory opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law learned Principal Commissioner ... considered necessary.” AY 2021-22 1. That the impugned order is void-ab-initio as having been made without granting the mandatory opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law learned Principal Commissioner

The Indian Hume Pipe Co Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3261/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri S. C. Tiwari & Ms. NavyaFor Respondent: Mr. R. A. Dhyani

Section 143(3)Section 263

Osho Developers, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circel 42(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3174/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 143(1)

assessee downloaded the intimation on 21/11/2022 and immediately filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without granting opportunity of being heard. The Ld.AR emphasised that during COVID pandemic, Hon’ble Supreme Court had extended the limitation under the statute and therefore the delay in filling ... Ld.AO to consider the claim of the assessee having regard to the evidences filed in support. Needles to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. Accordingly the grounds raised by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. 5 ITA 3174/Mum/2025

Mr Manish Jagdish Bajaj, Mumbai vs. PCIT-41, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2758/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Mr. Manish Jagdish Bajaj Pcit-41, Mumbai Flat No. 605,606, 6Th Floor, Farm Room No. 541, Kautilya Manor Chs Adarsh Colony, Marve Vs. Bhava, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Road, Malad (West), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai- 400064 Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400051 Pan No. Aghpb 6661 P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. R A Dhyani, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Suchek Anchaliya

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

Assessing Officer shall give the assessee reasonable opportunity Assessing Officer shall give the assessee reasonable opportunity Assessing Officer shall give the assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard and pass a s of being heard and pass a speaking order after taking into peaking order after taking into consideration the explanation

Prashul Real Estate Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward 13(1)(1), Mumbai City

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

ITA 2634/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 2634/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2018-19) Prashul Real Estate Pvt. V/S. Ito-Ward 13(1)(1) Ltd. बिाम Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 2Nd Floor, Gita Building, Road, New Marine Lines, Next To Hp Petrol Pump, Churchgate, Maharashtra- Near Sion Circle, Sion 400020 (East), Maharashtra- 400022 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaicp3419M Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Margav Shukla & ShriFor Respondent: Mr. R. A. Dhyani

Section 250Section 68

interest of justice, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) with directions to pass a fresh order after giving due opportunity of being heard to the IRP. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Mumbai vs. Hinduja Global Solutions Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2492/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Hinduja Global Solutions Central Circle 2(3), Mumbai Limited Room No. 803, 8Th Floor, Pratishtha Vs. 1St Floor, Hinduja House Bhawan, Churchgate, Ld.Dr. Annie Besant Road, Mumbai, - 400020 Worli, Worli S.O, Mumbai- 400018 Pan No. Aaact 1763 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, CIT-DR

Section 10ASection 143Section 143(3)

appeal no. ITA No.2228/Mum/2015 dated 13.04.2016 wherein the AO has been directed to reconsider the matter and the appellant shall be given an opportunity of being heard and if the appellant has already allocated the expenditure the same has to be added back to the profits of the units

Jaiswal Youth Federation, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai

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

ITA 2410/MUM/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 2410/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2025-26) Jaiswal Youth Federation V/S. Cit (Exemptions), Mumbai 105, Adishakti Chs, बिाम 601, Comballa Hill, Mtnl Behind S Habri Hotel, M. Te Building, Pedder Road, G. Road, Goregaon (West), Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Mumbai, Maharashtra- Marg, Cumballa Hill, 400104 Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400026 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaecj8414G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Bhupendra Shah राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Vivek Perampurna

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna

Section 11Section 12ASection 8Section 80G

learned CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai was not justified in giving only 5 days' time in final SCN dt. 12/12/2024, thereby denying the appellant sufficient opportunity of being heard, hence, violated the principal of natural justice. 3. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in accordance with