“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

Vasant Vyakhyanmala, Nashik vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward 1(1), Nashik

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

ITA 1097/PUN/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1097/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vasant Vyakhyanmala, V The Income Tax Officer, S.No.512/3/47, Lokshahir S Exemption Ward-1(1), Gajabhau Beni Marg, Samata Nashik. Nagar, B/H Runanubandh, Mumbai Agra Road, Nashik – 422011. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaatv3367P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Smt. Sonal L Sonkavde –Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 03/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)-1, Visakhapatnam Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 25.02.2025 For The A.Y.2017-18 Emanating From Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 14.11.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250

becomes additional evidence, hence we set- aside the case to the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication. The Assessing Officer shall provide the opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee shall file necessary details before the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Nelsoft Private Limited, Pune vs. PCIT, Pune-2, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 926/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: S/Shri Rahul Mehta & Yash DagaFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Sengupta, CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Income Tax Act 1961, the said order is proposed to be revised under the said section. 5. You are hereby given an opportunity of being heard to explain as to why the proposed revision should not be carried out. For this purpose, your case is posted for hearing ... made in this order. The assessment is to be completed within the stipulated time-frame after conducting the necessary enquiries and giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Further, wherever applicable, the Assessing Officer is also directed to initiate penalty proceedings as per the provisions of the Income

Kai Dr Subhashrao Dhaknebahuuddeshiya Sevabhavi Sanstha, Jalna vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 2209/PUN/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2025AY 2024-25

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Mahendra BhalgatFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Sengupta, CIT

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 2(15)Section 80G

registration granted under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should not be cancelled. The assessee was also given opportunity of being heard vide the said notice. The assessee was specifically informed that in the event of failure to comply by the due date, the application shall be liable ... assessee through e-portal and email. However, the assessee neither submitted explanation to the show cause notice till date nor availed the opportunity of being heard. 6. Since, the assessee has not furnished any explanation to the discrepancies communicated to it, it is presumed that the assessee has nothing

Kai Dr Subhashrao Dhaknebahuuddeshiya Sevabhavi Sanstha, Jalna vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 2208/PUN/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2025AY 2024-25

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Mahendra BhalgatFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Sengupta, CIT

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 2(15)Section 80G

Devarapalli Bharathamma, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 355/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad05 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri A V Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

file of CIT(A) with a direction to re-decide 4 ITA.No.355/Hyd./2025 the issue in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee is directed to furnish relevant evidences before the CIT(A) to substantiate her case

Heart Rich Foundation, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption, Mumbai

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

ITA 2355/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil PadvekarFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra

Section 12ASection 80G

without fail. The CIT(E) is directed to examine the same and decide the issue afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court

Sohan Banwarilal Kumawat, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 42(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 1778/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 68

above direction we remit this issue back to the Ld.AO to considerate afresh in accordance with law. Needless 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. In the result the appeal

Gemini Property Developments India LLP, Mumbai vs. Income-Tax Officer-Ward 28(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1435/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 133(3)Section 263

computed. 7.2 We accordingly remit this issue back to the Ld.AO/TPO for denovo consideration. Needless 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. In the result the appeal filed

My Healthskape Medicals Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, Mumbai - 4, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2120/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 2120/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) M/S. My Healthskape V/S. Pcit, Mumbai-4 Medicals Pvt. Ltd. बिाम Room No. 629, 6Th Floor, 4-425A, Sharma Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Estate, Walbhat Road, Karve Road, Mumbai- Goregaon (E), Mumbai- 400020 400063 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcm4683K Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Rakesh Joshi राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Ritesh Misra

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra

Section 12ASection 135Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)Section 37Section 80G

pass such order thereon as the facts and circumstances of the case may justify. 6. Before doing so, I hereby give you an opportunity of being heard to explain your stand. If you desire to be heard in person or through an authorised representative, you may please attend before

Haryana City Gas Dustribution Limited, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Central Circle-18, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3053/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Haryana City Gas Distribution Vs Acit, Limited, A-107, Phase-1, Circle-11(2), Delhi. Sushant Lok, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002. Pan-Aabch2259N Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Saurav Rohatgi, Ca & Shri Rajat Mittal, Ca Respondent By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 05.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05.06.2025 Order

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

case.” Ground of appeal No.1 raised by the assessee is with respect 5. to the action of Ld.CIT(A) in not providing proper opportunity of being heard and Ground of appeal No.2 is with respect to the addition of INR 8,16,80,587/- made on account of undisclosed sales

Gajendra Mohanty, Malkangiri vs. Income Tax Officer, Jeypore Ward, Jeypore

In the result, the appeal filed for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed and the appeal filed for AY 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 161/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack04 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 250Section 3Section 69A

section 115BBE of the Act, i.e. @ 60% of income added u/s 69A of the Act. 10.0 The appellant was provided with sufficient opportunity of being heard at the time of appeal proceedings. However, the appellant has failed to produce documents to establish the nature and sources of the cash deposited

Gajendra Mohanty, Malkangiri vs. Income Tax Officer, Jeypore Ward, Jeypore

In the result, the appeal filed for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed and the appeal filed for AY 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 160/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack04 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 250Section 3Section 69A

Ranjeet Kumar, Patna vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Patna

ITA 61/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna04 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, PATNA (THROUGH VIRTUAL HERING) BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VP ITA No

Shivendu Shekhar Singh, Patna vs. ITO, Ward6(5), Patna

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

ITA 689/PAT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna04 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)

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, we also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before

Shivendu Shekhar Singh, Patna vs. ITO, Ward-6(5), Patna

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

ITA 688/PAT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna04 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(2)

Samast Vaishnav Vanik Parivar Surat, Surat vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 240/SRT/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Jun 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.240/Srt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2025-26) (Hybrid Hearing) Samast Vaishnav Vanik Parivar Surat, Vs. Cit (Exemption), U 25 & 26, 1St Floor, Escon Plaza, Anand Ahmedabad Mahal Road, Adajan, Surat – 395009, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aants7032B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Aashish Pophare, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/06/2025

Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)Section 80G(5)(m)

case before the CIT(E). It is settled law that principles of natural justice require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to present his case. Therefore, without delving deeper into the merits of the case, in the interests of justice, we set aside the order ... restore the matter to the file of CIT(E) for fresh adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to furnish ITA No.240/SRT/2025/AY.2025-26 Samast Vaishnav Vanik Parivar Surat its submission and the relevant details/documents before

International Society for Life Sciences, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 282/JPR/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Bhargava, CA (Thru: VC)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

assessee submitted that the appeals may be set aside to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to pass order after providing sufficient opportunity of being heard and to accept and consider the certificate under RPT Act, 1959. Conclusively, the ld AR of the assessee prayed that the assessee trust

International Society for Life Sciences, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 277/JPR/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Bhargava, CA (Thru: VC)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

Mahendra Singh Naruka, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesseein ITA no

ITA 205/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA. No. 204 & 205/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Shri Mahendra Singh Naruka B-536, J.D.A. Colony Malivya Nagar, Jaipur 302 017 अपीलार्थी / Appellant स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABUPN 1656 J बनाम Vs. The ACIT Central Circle-3 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निधर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri S.R. Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT -DR a

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

appellant has not furnished any information/evidences to rebut the findings of the AO. It is specifically observed here that inspite of giving many opportunities of being heard to the appellant, as detailed above the appellant has chosen not to make any submissions or furnish any information to substantiate and plead ... that lis between the parties has to be decided on merits so that nobody’s rights could be scuttled down without providing the opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, the matter is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide it afresh by providing

Mahendra Singh Naruka, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesseein ITA no

ITA 204/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA. No. 204 & 205/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Shri Mahendra Singh Naruka B-536, J.D.A. Colony Malivya Nagar, Jaipur 302 017 अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम Vs. The ACIT Central Circle-3 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABUPN 1656 J निधर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri S.R. Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT -DR a

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 68