“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

Vempati Satish, West Godavari vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Eluru

ITA 455/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us :

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 250

adjudicate the aforesaid issue. 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 claim based on fresh documentary evidence, if any. The Grounds of Appeal

Ellapu Narasamma L/R of Late Ellapu Appa Rao, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Visakhapatnam

ITA 414/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

culled out as under: “4. OBSERVATION AND DECISION : It is observed from the records that the appellant was provided multiple opportunities of being heard by way of issue of hearing notices. But appellant has not responded to the said notices. From the non responding conduct of the appellant ... same on merits. 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. As we have set aside the matter to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, therefore, we refrain from adverting

Shreejee Udyog, Bagru vs. ITO, Ward-7(2) Jaipur, Jaipur

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

ITA 356/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sisodia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT -DR a

Section 144Section 250(6)

view that lis between the parties has to be decided on merits so that nobody’s rights could be scuttled down without providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, the matter is restored to the file of the AO to decide it afresh by providing one more opportunity

Aakash Purshottambhai Vaghela, Vadodara vs. The ITO, TDS-1, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1064/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 194ISection 194JSection 201(1)

Appeals)/AddI./JCIT (A), Prayagraj, has grossly erred in law and in facts in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. The appeal of the appellant may kindly be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) and may please ... directed to afford reasonable opportunity of being heard. 2. The Ld. CIT (Appeals)/Addl./JCIT (A), Prayagraj has grossly erred in law and in facts in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without properly appreciating the merits of the case considering the Provisions of the Income Tax Act and amendments thereto

Ark Cartons Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. ITO, Ward 8(1) Pune, Pune

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

ITA 720/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.720/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ark Cartons Private Limited, V The Income Tax Officer, 67/9, D-3 Block, Midc, S Ward-8(1), Pune-44. Chinchwad, Pune – 411019. Maharashtra. Pan: Aanca6083B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rinkesh Gupta – Ca Revenue By Shri Rajesh Haladkar – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 17.01.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For A.Y.2017-18 Dated 23.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Assessing Officer Erred In Adding & Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 69A

ld.AR for the assessee submits that non-compliance is neither intentional nor deliberate. ITA No.720/PUN/2025 [A] 2.1 Hence, ld.AR pleaded for one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee for filing necessary documents before the ld.CIT(A) may be granted. 2.2 Ld.AR invited our attention to the paper book

Janata Shikshan Sanstha, Pune vs. ITO Exemption Ward-1, Pune

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

ITA 522/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: None

Section 144Section 250Section 5

prevent such delays from recurring. The Trust respectfully prays that the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously condone the delay and grant it an opportunity to be heard. 3. We have heard the ld. Departmental Representative and gone through the averments made in the affidavit. Hon’ble courts in plethora ... ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) shall in the course of set-aside proceedings afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and if necessary a remand report may be called for from the ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Then, after considering the submissions/evidences

Manaswita Dasgupta, Barakkpore vs. I.T.O.Ward-51(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 90/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 90/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2021-2022 Manaswita Dasgupta,…………….….………Appellant 482/C, Anandmath, ‘C’ Block, Ichapur, Nawabgunj, S.O. Barrakpore, North 24-Parganas-743144, W.B., [Pan:Bpupd5881C] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………….…….Respondent Ward-51(1), Kolkata, Uttarapan Complex, Ultadanga, Maniktala Civil Centre, Kolkata-700054

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)

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

Puncha Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited, Bankura vs. ACIT, Ward 3(1), Bankura

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

ITA 661/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha CIT(DR) &

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 80P

aside the order of the Ld. 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

Palani Radhakrishnan, Dharmapuri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Dharmapuri

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

ITA 1160/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1160/Chny/2025 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Jai V. Vairav, C.A GHFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(3)

Authorized Representative (A.R) of the assessee has submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without providing property opportunity of being heard and therefore, requested one more opportunity be granted to the assessee to substantiate his case before the Ld. CIT(A). 4. On the other hand

Students Education Society Gadag, Gadag vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 143/BANG/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : Na Students Education Society Basavareddi Hospital Edurige Malakoppanamath Building G.K.C. Rani Rasthe Cit (Exemptions) Vs. Gadag Bengaluru Karnataka 582 101 Pan No : Aanas3730M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Sri Prathik P., A.RFor Respondent: Sri E. Shridhar, D.R

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

section (5) of section 80G of the Act in Form No.10AB on 30.06.2024. 3.1 The ld. CIT(Exemptions), Bangalore after granting opportunity of being heard rejected the approval u/s 80G of the Act on the following grounds: (i) As per the Financial statements for the years ending

Hemendra Ramji Vira, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2472/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 127(2)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 56Section 68

General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, transfer any case from ... Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner from whose jurisdiction the case is to be transferred may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, pass the order; (b) where

Hemendra Ramji Vira, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2471/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 127(2)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 56Section 68

Hemendra Ramji Vira, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2470/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 127(2)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 56Section 68

Hemendra Ramji Vira, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2469/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 127(2)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 56Section 68

Hemendra Ramji Vira, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2468/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 127(2)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 56Section 68

Hemendra Ramji Vira, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2467/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Section 127(2)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 56Section 68

Kalpana Sanjay Satpute, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 28(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA 1104/Mum/2025

ITA 1104/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeekalpana Sanjay Satpute Vs Ito, Ward 28(2)(1), Mumbai Flat No. B-202, Viceroy Park Chs, Plot No.03, Secor No.18, Sanpada, Navi Mumbai-400 705 Pan: Bghps5409P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Milind Sahasrabudhe, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 144BSection 2Section 250

preserve the sanctity of the proceedings to be conducted by the Ld. CIT(A). Needless to say, the assessee shall be granted reasonable opportunity of being heard during the remanded proceedings. At the same time, the assessee is expected to act diligently and cooperate fully for the expeditious disposal

Hemendra Ramji Vira, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6405/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 127(2)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 56Section 68

Das Offshore Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3890/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 Das Offshore Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income Sagar Uday, Plot No. F-3, Tax, Circle 1(2), Agroli, Sector 29, Mumbai Behind Cidco Bhawan, Vs. Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai - 400614 Maharashtra (Pan: Aaacd5996K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Mr. Fenil Bhatt, Ramesh Jain, Cas Revenue : Shri. Mahadevan A.M. Krishanan, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 22.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.06.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1055302006(1), Dated 22.08.2023 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(2), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 27.11.2017 For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Mr. Fenil Bhatt, Ramesh Jain, CAsFor Respondent: Shri. Mahadevan A.M. Krishanan, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147

confirming the additions of Rs.5,09,65,000/-on account of provision for unexpected losses and/or closing calculation of WIP, without affording proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Order passed by the learned

Sumer Chand Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 35(5), Civic Centre

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

ITA 354/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansumer Chand Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 35 (8), H.No.C-3/6, Prashant Viahr, Delhi. Delhi – 110 085. (Pan : Actpg0827E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2025 Date Of Order : 26.06.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 02.08.2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Ld. Dr Of The Revenue Brought To Our Notice That Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Before The Ld. Cit (A) With A Delay Of 406 Days. It Is Brought To Our Notice That Ld. Cit (A) Has Not Condoned The Abovesaid Delay & He Supported The Non-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

after hereby condoning the delay. It is directed to ld. CIT (A) to decide the issue on merit after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court