← 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

DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Kotatk Mahindra Bank Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 5110/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 4950/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 4946/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2021-22) Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. V/S. Assessment Unit, Income 27 Bkc, Plot No. C 27, G बिाम Tax Department Block, Bandra Kurla Government Of India, Complex, Bandra, Ministry Of Finance, Maharashtra-400051 Maharashtra-400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaack4409J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 5075/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 5110/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2021-22) Dcit-2(3)(1), Mumbai V/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 552, Aayakar Bhawan, बिाम 27 Bkc, Plot No. C 27, G M.K. Road, Churchgate, Block, Bandra Kurla Maharashtra-400020 Complex, Bandra, Maharashtra-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaack4409J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Madhur Agrawal राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Ritesh Misra

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra
Section 41

shall decide the issue afresh after verifying the aforementioned facts and after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Ground No. 1 is allowed for statistical purposes. 5. Ground No. 2 relates to the disallowance of administrative expenses ... below, we are of the considered view that the AO should examine the claim of deduction afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to furnish complete details for its claim of deduction

DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 5075/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 4950/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 4946/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2021-22) Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. V/S. Assessment Unit, Income 27 Bkc, Plot No. C 27, G बिाम Tax Department Block, Bandra Kurla Government Of India, Complex, Bandra, Ministry Of Finance, Maharashtra-400051 Maharashtra-400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaack4409J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 5075/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 5110/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2021-22) Dcit-2(3)(1), Mumbai V/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 552, Aayakar Bhawan, बिाम 27 Bkc, Plot No. C 27, G M.K. Road, Churchgate, Block, Bandra Kurla Maharashtra-400020 Complex, Bandra, Maharashtra-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaack4409J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Madhur Agrawal राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Ritesh Misra

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra
Section 41

shall decide the issue afresh after verifying the aforementioned facts and after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Ground No. 1 is allowed for statistical purposes. 5. Ground No. 2 relates to the disallowance of administrative expenses ... below, we are of the considered view that the AO should examine the claim of deduction afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to furnish complete details for its claim of deduction

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Mumbai

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

ITA 4950/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 4950/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 4946/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2021-22) Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. V/S. Assessment Unit, Income 27 Bkc, Plot No. C 27, G बिाम Tax Department Block, Bandra Kurla Government Of India, Complex, Bandra, Ministry Of Finance, Maharashtra-400051 Maharashtra-400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaack4409J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 5075/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 5110/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2021-22) Dcit-2(3)(1), Mumbai V/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 552, Aayakar Bhawan, बिाम 27 Bkc, Plot No. C 27, G M.K. Road, Churchgate, Block, Bandra Kurla Maharashtra-400020 Complex, Bandra, Maharashtra-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaack4409J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Madhur Agrawal राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Ritesh Misra

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra
Section 41

shall decide the issue afresh after verifying the aforementioned facts and after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Ground No. 1 is allowed for statistical purposes. 5. Ground No. 2 relates to the disallowance of administrative expenses ... below, we are of the considered view that the AO should examine the claim of deduction afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to furnish complete details for its claim of deduction

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Mumbai

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

ITA 4946/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 4950/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 4946/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2021-22) Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. V/S. Assessment Unit, Income 27 Bkc, Plot No. C 27, G बिाम Tax Department Block, Bandra Kurla Government Of India, Complex, Bandra, Ministry Of Finance, Maharashtra-400051 Maharashtra-400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaack4409J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 5075/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 5110/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2021-22) Dcit-2(3)(1), Mumbai V/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 552, Aayakar Bhawan, बिाम 27 Bkc, Plot No. C 27, G M.K. Road, Churchgate, Block, Bandra Kurla Maharashtra-400020 Complex, Bandra, Maharashtra-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaack4409J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Madhur Agrawal राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Ritesh Misra

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra
Section 41

shall decide the issue afresh after verifying the aforementioned facts and after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Ground No. 1 is allowed for statistical purposes. 5. Ground No. 2 relates to the disallowance of administrative expenses ... below, we are of the considered view that the AO should examine the claim of deduction afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to furnish complete details for its claim of deduction

Shri Shenalma Gaushala Trust, Banaskantha vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

Appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 95/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2025

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.94 & 95/Ahd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : Na Shri Shenalma Gaushala Trust Motamesara, Banaskantha, Gujarat - 385565 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aasts9381C अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) Assessee By: Revenue By : The Commissioner Of Income Tharad, बनाम / Tax (Exemption) V/S. Ahmedabad प्रत्यर्थी/ (Respondent) Shri Samir Vora, Ar Shri Durga Dutt, Cit.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 10/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(Exemption)"] Rejecting The Applications For Registration Under Section 12A(1)(Ac)(Iii) & For Approval Under Section 80G(5)(Iii) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"] & Cancelling The Provisional Approvals Earlier Granted. Since Common Facts & Grounds Are Involved, Both Appeals Are Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Condonation Of Delay 2. The Registry Noted Delay In Filing Both The Appeals Before Us. The Appeals Are Accompanied By Applications Under Section 253(5) Of The Act Seeking Condonation Of Delay. Details Of Such Delay Are As Follows - Appeal Order Appealed Against Date Order Of Cit(E) Date Of Appeal Due Date For Appeal Date Of Filing Before Us Delay (Days) Delay Noted By Registry

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: The Commissioner of Income
Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 253(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

aside and both matters be restored to the file of the CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad for de novo adjudication on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard. 10. The learned DR did not object to the proposal for restoration of the matters to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration ... restored to the file of the CIT(Exemption) for de novo adjudication in accordance with law, after affording a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee trust. 14. We also direct that the assessee shall duly cooperate with the proceedings and shall comply with any notice

Shri Shenalma Gaushala Trust, Banaskantha vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

Appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 94/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2025

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.94 & 95/Ahd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : Na Shri Shenalma Gaushala Trust Motamesara, Banaskantha, Gujarat - 385565 Tharad, स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aasts9381C अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) Assessee By: Revenue By : The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption) V/S. Ahmedabad प्रत्यर्थी/ (Respondent) Shri Samir Vora, Ar Shri Durga Dutt, Cit.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 10/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(Exemption)"] Rejecting The Applications For Registration Under Section 12A(1)(Ac)(Iii) & For Approval Under Section 80G(5)(Iii) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"] & Cancelling The Provisional Approvals Earlier Granted. Since Common Facts & Grounds Are Involved, Both Appeals Are Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Condonation Of Delay 2. The Registry Noted Delay In Filing Both The Appeals Before Us. The Appeals Are Accompanied By Applications Under Section 253(5) Of The Act Seeking Condonation Of Delay. Details Of Such Delay Are As Follows - Appeal Order Appealed Against Date Order Of Cit(E) Date Of Appeal Due Date For Appeal Date Of Filing Before Us Delay (Days) Delay Noted By Registry

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: The Commissioner of Income
Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 253(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

aside and both matters be restored to the file of the CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad for de novo adjudication on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard. 10. The learned DR did not object to the proposal for restoration of the matters to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration ... restored to the file of the CIT(Exemption) for de novo adjudication in accordance with law, after affording a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee trust. 14. We also direct that the assessee shall duly cooperate with the proceedings and shall comply with any notice