“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

Wavoo Real Estate Corporation, Chennai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Applications are dismissed

ITA 763/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.762, 763 & 764/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17 & S.A. Nos. 52, 53 & 54/Chny/2025 [In I.T.A. Nos.762, 763 & 764/Chny/2025] Wavoo Real Estate Corporation, Vs. The Dcit/Assistant Commissioner Of Wavoo Mansion, 48/39, Rajaji Salai, Income Tax, 1St Floor, Room No. 106, Mannady, Non Corporate Ward 12(1), Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan:Aaafw0270G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Three Stay Applications Are Filed By The Petitioner Seeking Grant Of Stay From Recovery Of Outstanding Disputed Demand Of ₹.1,07,85,566/- For Ay 2013-14, ₹.2,61,518/- For Ay 2014-15 & ₹.13,88,831/- For Ay 2016-17 Till The Final Disposal Of The Appeals Filed By The Petitioner.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194I

date of receipt of this order and the assessee shall produce the receipt before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall allow reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. I.T.A. Nos. 763 & 764/Chny/2025

Wavoo Real Estate Corporation, Chennai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Applications are dismissed

ITA 762/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194I

Ct. Ramanathan (HUF), Pudukkottai vs. PCIT 1, Madurai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 761/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.761/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21 C.T.Ramanathan(Huf), Income Tax Officer, No.7/45, Ct.Rm.S.House, M.St.S. Street Ward-1, Kulipirai, Pudukottai Dist, Pudukottai. Tamil Nadu-622 402. [Pan: Aaahc0701L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.V.Subbarayan, Dcit(Retd.) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.M.K.Biju, Cir Dr By Virtual. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr.V.Subbarayan, DCIT(Retd.)For Respondent: Mr.M.K.Biju, CIR DR by virtual

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 3

necessary inquiries and verification and also by considering the issues discussed in the preceding paras. The Assessing Officer is also directed to afford opportunity of being heard to the assesse before passing the order and pass fresh assessment order accordingly….” Now assessee is in appeal before us. Page ... erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify

Sree Hara Vividoddesha Sahakara Sangha Niyamita, Davangere vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Davanagere

Appeal of the assessee are hereby partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 560/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri R Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate

Section 144

matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. 4.3 The Assessing Officer is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass a speaking order . Page 3 of 3 after considering all submissions and documentary evidence to be provided

Afroz Khan, Davanagere vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Davanagere

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

ITA 453/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Ramanagowda S Gowdar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate for Standing

Section 143(1)Section 250(6)

file of the of the learned CIT(A) with a direction to re-adjudicate the matter de novo, after granting a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ld. CIT-A shall specifically examine the assessee's claim regarding double addition and pass a speaking order in accordance

Mnnit Alumni Excellence Foundation, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Bangalore

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

ITA 379/BANG/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Vaidyanathan, CAFor Respondent: Shri E. Shridhar, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

Ld.CIT(E) for deciding the issues afresh on merits, after receiving any further explanations from the assessee as well as after granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 13. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

Mnnit Alumni Excellence Foundation, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Bangalore

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

ITA 378/BANG/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Vaidyanathan, CAFor Respondent: Shri E. Shridhar, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

Rishi Samskruti Vidya Kendra, Bangalore vs. CIT(E), Bangalore

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

ITA 333/BANG/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : Na

For Appellant: Sri E. Balasubramaniyan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R

Section 12ASection 80G

assessee trust applied for final approval u/s 80G of the Act on 29.6.2024 in form no.10AB. The ld. CIT(Exemptions) had granted opportunity of being heard vide notices dated 18.10.2024 and 8.11.2024. However, the assessee had not responded to any of the notices. The ld. CIT(Exemptions ... entire issue in dispute to the file of ld. CIT (Exemptions) to decide afresh in accordance with law. 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 in support of its claim

Shobha, Tiptur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tiptur

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

ITA 152/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Gokul, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 271ASection 69A

facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in passing the order without giving the sufficient opportunity of being heard thus violating the principles of natural justice rendering the order liable to be cancelled on the facts and circumstances of the case

Suresh Ashwathsastry Madamuthanahally, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(4), Bangalore

In the result, the delay is condoned, and the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2556/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Wagle, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)

Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)

served to an email address which did not belong to the assessee. Page 2 of 3 Consequently, the assessee did not receive any opportunity to be heard. Only after receiving a telephonic intimation from the Income Tax Department regarding an outstanding demand, the assessee became aware of the order passed ... points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision. In the present case, the assessee was deprived of the opportunity of being heard due to service defects, and therefore, the principles of natural justice appear to . Page 3 of 3 have been violated. In view

Romaan Mohd Hussain Pathan, Mumbai vs. ACIT-21(3), Piramal Chambers Mumbai

ITA 45/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: the Tribunal on the ground reproduced at Paragraph 2 above.

For Appellant: Ms. Radha HalbeFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40A(2)(b)

Learned CIT(A) is set aside with the direction to adjudicate the appeal preferred by the Assessee afresh after granting the Assessee an opportunity of being heard. All the rights and contentions of the Assessee are left open. The Assessee shall be at liberty to move application for admission

Late Dev Kumar Gopaldas Aggarwal (Through Legal Reprsentative-Mr. Yogesh Devkumar Aggarwal), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 20(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assesseeis allowed

ITA 2861/MUM/2025[2861]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) Late Devkumargopaldas Aggarwal Ito, Ward-20(1)(1) 2Nd Floor, Gupta Mills Estate, Darukhana, Vs Mumbai Reay Road, Mumbai-400010. [Pan No. Aabpa0675J] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 112Section 154Section 254(1)

proper opportunity and without considering appreciating the statement of facts and grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. The appellant submits that an opportunity of being heard been given. 2. Rival submissions of both the parties have heard and record perused. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee

Purvi Manish Vora, Mumbai vs. Ward 27(2)(5) Mumbai, Mumbai

ITA 2426/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay ParekhFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmal

Section 144Section 147Section 69A

deposits in the bank account. In this case, the assessee has not bothered to attend or file any submission even after so many opportunity of being heard to explain the transaction. Hence, transaction remains unexplained. In view of the above, the amount of Rs.20,77,000/- is unexplained. Hence ... preferred by the Assessee afresh after taking into consideration the above reply filed by the Assessee and after giving the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Assessee is also directed to file before the Learned CIT(A) compilation containing all the submissions and details filed during the assessment

Alfa Distilleries Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2389/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: the CIT (A) and details were under compilation. However, without considering the request of the appellant and without granting any further reasonable opportunity to the Appellant to present its case, the very next day, ie. on 04/02/2025 passed the ex-parte order. Therefore, the order passed under Section 250 r.w. Section 254 may be set aside to the CIT (A).

For Appellant: Ms. Neelam JadhavFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali

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

aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter back to his file for adjudication afresh, after allowing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per law. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as above.” 5. Thus ... details, documents & submission in support of its claims/contentions before the CIT(A). It is clarified that the Ld. CIT(A) shall grant reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. The Assessee is directed to be vigilant and track the appellate proceedings through Income Tax Business Application Portal. In case

Laffans Petrochemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 10(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5292/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarlaffans Petrochemicals V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd. Gujral House, 601, 6Th बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 10(2)(1), Floor, 167 Cst Road, Next To Room No. 209, 2Nd Floor, Axis Bank, Kalina, Santacruz Aayakar Bhawan, Maharishi East, Mumbai 400 098, Karve Road, Mumbai 400020, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacl0645D .. Appellant/अपीलार्थी Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Ms Aarti Sathe & Ms Aasavari Kadam,ARsFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai, (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

with P a g e | 5 A.Y. 2009-10 Laffans Petrochemicals Ltd., Mumbai similar direction. Needless to mention the AO must afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee while deciding the issue……… 7. Thus, the Hon’ble ITAT directed the AO to decide the issue afresh in terms

Virasat, Delhi vs. CIT(Exemption), Delhi

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

ITA 930/DEL/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: BEFORESHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

this appeal. 5. Ld. counsel for assessee has submitted that he sought some time to file the documents but without giving the sufficient opportunity of being heard the Ld. CIT(E) has dismissed the application of the assessee. Ld. counsel for the assessee has stated that he wants more time

Nidhi Aggarwal, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 53(2), Delhi

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

ITA 922/DEL/2025[2017-2018 ]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18 Nidhi Aggarwal Vs. Ito G-23, Lgf South Ward- 53 (2) Extension Part-I Delhi Pan No. Afupa7104E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 68

Counsel for assessee has submitted that Ld. NFAC should have decided the appeal on merit. He also submitted that sufficient opportunity of being heard was not provided by the authority. 6. Learned authorized representative for Department of Revenue submitted that departmental authorities have passed reasoned orders. He also submitted that

Geluk International Foundation, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward Exemption, Delhi

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

ITA 809/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Bleasstt. Year: 2023-24 Geluk International Vs. Ito, Ward Exemption Foundation, 1(2), Civic Centre, B-4, Ladakh Buddhish Vihara New Delhi Tara Devi Colony, Bela Road, Delhi – 54 (Pan: Aaaag7959D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.06.2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr. DR

Section 11(3)(c)Section 143(1)

grounds of appeal that the Intimation Order u/s. 143(1) of the Act has been passed without providing proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard and as such the adjustment made therein is in contravention to the principles of natural justice. It was the further contention that the adjustment ... interest of natural justice, I remit back the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, keeping in mind the aforesaid contentions of the assessee. Assessee is also directed to fully cooperate with the AO and canvass

Pushpa Pahuja, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Gurgaon

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

ITA 382/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanpushpa Pahuja, Vs. Ito, Ward 3 (1), B-16/24, Dlf Phase – 1, Haryana. Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Allpp1990N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Varun Goel, Ca Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2025 Date Of Order : 25.06.2025 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 25.12.2024 For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, It Is Brought To Our Notice That Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Before The Ld. Cit (A) With A Delay Of 140 Days. It Is Brought To Our Notice That Ld. Cit (A) Has Not Condoned The Abovesaid Delay. It Is Also Brought To Our Notice That The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 2 144/147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) Due To Non- Cooperation Of The Assessee. 3. After Considering The Submissions Of The Assessee, For The Sake Of Overall Justice, We Are Inclined To Remit This Issue To The File Of Assessing Officer After Condoning The Delay. It Is Directed To Assessing Officer 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.

For Appellant: Shri Varun Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 2

file of Assessing Officer after condoning the delay. It is directed to Assessing Officer 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

Essel Housing Projects Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-20, Delhi

The appeal is allowed, for statistical purposes only

ITA 1967/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. DR

remitted back to the files of the ld.CIT(A) to be decided afresh as per law after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeal is allowed, for statistical purposes only. Order pronounced in the open court on 25.06.2025. (MANISH AGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 25th June