← 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

Kautilaya Edurchar Trust, Bhavnagar vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 496/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2025

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 496/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : Na

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Durga Dutt, CIT.DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(ac)

section 12A(1), in light of the Circular. The CIT(Exemption) shall examine the application on merits after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass a speaking order in accordance with law. 9. In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order

Shri Naminath Jain Derasar Trust, Mehsana vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 201/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2025

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 201/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : Na

For Appellant: Shri Tej Shah, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.DR
Section 10ASection 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 253(3)

clarification or evidence, as may be necessary; and c. Pass a reasoned and speaking order after granting the assessee a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard. 10. We further direct the assessee to actively participate in the proceedings before the CIT(Exemption), to respond to all notices and requisitions

Shri Umedkumar Mandir Trust, Nadiad vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 139/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2025

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No. 139/Ahd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : Na

For Appellant: None (Written Submission)For Respondent: Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.DR
Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

reasoned and speaking order dealing with the factual and legal contentions raised by the assessee. 14. The assessee shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to furnish any additional evidence, if so required, in the course of such proceedings. 15. The impugned order is set aside

Irm Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1590/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 1590/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Irm Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Irm House, बनाम/ Of Income Tax, V/S. Off. C.G Raod, Circle 2(1)(1), Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380009. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaaci3678M अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, SR-DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 194HSection 194J

assessee directly and the additions were made without any independent inquiry or corroborative evidence and without affording an effective opportunity of being heard. 6. In the appellate order the CIT(A) rejected all contentions raised by the assessee. It held that since Green Channel Travel Services Ltd. had amalgamated with

Csr Pune, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 421/PUN/2025[Not Applicable]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Abhay ShastriFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Sengupta, CIT
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

application shall be liable to be rejected and the registration /approval shall also be liable to be cancelled. The assessee was also given opportunity of being heard vide the said notice. However, the assessee neither submitted the above mentioned compliance nor availed the opportunity of being heard. The assessee ... requested to submit compliance by 11/10/2024. The assessee was also given opportunity of being heard vide the said notice. The notice was duly served on the assessee through e-portal and email. However, the assessee neither furnished its compliance to the show cause notice nor availed the opportunity of being

Csr Pune, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 420/PUN/2025[Not Applicable]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Abhay ShastriFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Sengupta, CIT
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

application shall be liable to be rejected and the registration /approval shall also be liable to be cancelled. The assessee was also given opportunity of being heard vide the said notice. However, the assessee neither submitted the above mentioned compliance nor availed the opportunity of being heard. The assessee ... requested to submit compliance by 11/10/2024. The assessee was also given opportunity of being heard vide the said notice. The notice was duly served on the assessee through e-portal and email. However, the assessee neither furnished its compliance to the show cause notice nor availed the opportunity of being

Cricketmaharashtra@Yahoo.Com, Pune vs. ACIT(E), Pune

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

ITA 1724/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Gadekar
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

fact and law in the light of the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in AUDA‟s case (supra) after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to make his further submissions before the Ld. CIT(A) to substantiate its case ... decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in AUDA’s case (supra) on merits as per fact and law after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to make his further submissions before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to substantiate its case

Venkata Subba Reddy Mettupalli, Secunderabad vs. ITO., Ward-15(2), Hyderabad

ITA 400/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri T. Chaitanya KumarFor Respondent: Ms. Vishnu Priya, Sr.A.R
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 40

matter, in all fairness, be restored to the file of A.O. with a direction to re-adjudicate the same after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. Per contra, Ms. Vishnu Priya, the learned senior Departmental Representative (for short “Ld. DR”) relied upon the orders ... while framing the assessment. 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. 11. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 10th June

Parijatham Ravula, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 31/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri T. Chaitanya KumarFor Respondent: : Shri Gurpreet Singh, SR-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

appeal afresh after giving due opportunity to ITA No.31/Hyd/2025 5 the assessee to file relevant documents and evidence and after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 7.2 We make it clear that the assessee shall co-operate in the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) and shall not seek

Prasadam Foundation, Kadapa vs. ITO., Exemption Ward, Tirupati

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

ITA 246/HYD/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Jun 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Respondent: : Shri Narender Kumar Naik
Section 12ASection 80G

pointed out any specific deficiency in the documents submitted by the assessee, nor has the assessee been afforded proper opportunity of being heard. The Ld. AR prayed before the bench that the matter may be restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, after providing ... orders and restore the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to adjudicate the applications afresh, after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and allowing the assessee to file any additional documents or evidences in support of their applications. 6. In the result

Prasadam Foundation, Kadapa vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Tirupati

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

ITA 245/HYD/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Jun 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Respondent: : Shri Narender Kumar Naik
Section 12ASection 80G

pointed out any specific deficiency in the documents submitted by the assessee, nor has the assessee been afforded proper opportunity of being heard. The Ld. AR prayed before the bench that the matter may be restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, after providing ... orders and restore the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to adjudicate the applications afresh, after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and allowing the assessee to file any additional documents or evidences in support of their applications. 6. In the result

Rajshekar Yadhar, Mandanapalle vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Madanapalle

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

ITA 130/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna Urala, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. Vishnu Priya, SR-DR
Section 143(2)Section 69

with a direction to examine the additional evidences sought to be furnished by the assessee, including the affidavits, and afford reasonable opportunity of being heard before re-adjudicating the issue afresh in accordance with law. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Cambridge Technology Enterprises Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle -1, Hyderabad

ITA 388/HYD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: the Dispute Resolution Panel - 1, Bangalore (for short “DRP”). The DRP, vide its order u/s 144C(5) of the Act, dt.25.10.2016 after considering the objections rejected the adjustment of Rs.7.25 crores (supra) suggested by the TPO and directed the A.O. to make an addition of Rs.10,21,789/- towards shortfall of ALP adjustment by charging 5% mark up on the reimbursement of expenses transactions. Accordingly, the A.O. vide his assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.144C(13), dated 29.11.2016 f

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali MohanFor Respondent: Shri Narender Kumar
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 92C

aside by the Pr. CIT with a direction to frame a fresh assessment order after examining all the issues and affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. Thereafter, the A.O. vide his order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 26.07.2022 gave

Kishore Rambilas Khandelwal, Gulbarga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Yadgir

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 36/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 250

raised before us in the grounds before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) is directed to pass the order after granting opportunity of being heard. Assessee is directed to submit the correct email id and the address to which the notices must be sent. Page

Sri Abichethana Social Welfare and Charitable Trust, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Bengaluru

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

ITA 273/BANG/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri.Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

fresh consideration and decide the issue as per law and learned CIT(E) is directed to give reasonable opportunity of being heard and the assessee is directed to substantiate its case. Assessee is directed to prove the genuineness of the activities which may be considered as charitable in nature

Sri Abichethana Social Welfare and Charitable Trust, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions), Bangalore

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

ITA 272/BANG/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri.Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

fresh consideration and decide the issue as per law and learned CIT(E) is directed to give reasonable opportunity of being heard and the assessee is directed to substantiate its case. Assessee is directed to prove the genuineness of the activities which may be considered as charitable in nature

Sarika Sajjan Agrawal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 42(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6638/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Sarika Sajjan Agrawal, Income Tax Officer, 7/538, City End Chs Ltd., Ward 42(1)(5) Gorai Road, Vs. Room No.945, Borivali West, Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400091. Bandra Kurla Complex, Pan: Aftpa1907Q Mumbai – 400051. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Lalchand Choudhary, Ld. C.A. Revenue By : Shri. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Ld.Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing : 07.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.06.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 01.11.2024, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2012-13. 2. In This Case, An Information Was Received From Ddit (Investigation) Unit-8(2), Mumbai Dated 07.03.2019 To The Effect That During The Investigation Carried Out By The Income Tax Department, It Was Found That The Assessee During The Year Under Consideration Has Made Transaction Of Rs.27,73,881/- In A Penny Stock-M/S. Tilak Ventures Ltd., Which Has Been Used To Facilitate Introduction Of Unaccounted Income Of The Members Of The 2 Mrs. Sarika Sajjan Agrawal Beneficiaries In The Form Of Exempt Long Term Capital Gain/Short Term Capital Loss, In Their Books Of Account.

For Appellant: Shri Lalchand Choudhary, Ld. C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Ld.Sr.D.R
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

suffice to say by taking into consideration the application u/r 46A of the Rules filed along with the relevant documents/evidences and affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 5 Mrs. Sarika Sajjan Agrawal 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ACIT, Central Circle, Dhanbad vs. Anjanay Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd., West Bengal

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in IT(SS)A No

ITA 168/RAN/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi09 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

only in respect of stock reconciliation, the issue is restored to the file of Assessing Officer for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. In the result, the appeal of the revenue in IT(SS)A No. 35/Ran/2023 stands partly allowed for statistical purposes as directed above

The Hazaribagh Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Hazaribag vs. ACIT, Hazaribag

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

ITA 158/RAN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi09 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: BEFORES/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Podar, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT DR
Section 11(1)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)

this disallowance of Rs.15,37,16,741/- is restored back to the file of the AO for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court

Subedar Pathak, Gorakhpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur

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

ITA 338/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.338/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Subedar Pathak Devnagari, Near Indian Oil Petrol Pump, Almunium Factory Road, Gorakhpur (U.P)-273- 001 Pan: Apspp4726M ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 250

matter came up before the ITAT, it had failed to address the infirmity regarding the fact that the assessee was not afforded proper opportunity of being heard and the matter was dismissed ex-parte by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC which amounted to violation of principles of natural justice ... part of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In light of such decision, the petitioner ought to have been granted an opportunity of being heard which, partakes the characteristic of the fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 11. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay