← 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

Morparia and Ranka Construction Co., Mumbai vs. ITO 17(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2786/MUM/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Morparia & Ranka Ito 17(2)(3), Mumbai Construction Co. Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai Office No.307, 3Rd Floor, 400023 Gundecha Chamber, Nagindas Vs. Master Road, Fort, Mumbai 400023 Pan: Aabfm0391D (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri. Vimal Punmiya, Ca Revenue : Shri. Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.05.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Appeal No. Cit(A), Mumbai- 28/10833/2016-17 Dated 15.04.2024 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income Tax Officer 17(2)(3), Mumbai U/S. 143(3) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 28.12.2016 For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Confirming Addition Made Of Rs.56500000/- Under Section 28(Iv) Of The Act Which Represents Amount Received & Now Repayable To M/S Crb Capital Market Ltd On Account Of 2

For Appellant: Shri. Vimal Punmiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Bhangepatil Pushkaraj
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 28

facts as stated above and give appropriate treatment in accordance with the provisions of law. Needless to say that assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard to make its 10 ITA No. 2786/MUM/2024 AY: 2014-15 Morparia and Ranka construction Co. submissions and reconcile correct factual position in terms

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax(Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

ITA 3795/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 2(15)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax(Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

ITA 3794/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 2(15)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH

Neelam Jindal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-59(1), Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5186/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraneelam Jindal Vs. Acit, Circle 59(1) C/O Sh. Ravi Gupta, Delhi B-41, Lgf, Lailash Colony, Delhi 110048 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaopj6430D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Neha Gupta, Adv. Respondent By : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.05.2025

For Appellant: Ms. Neha Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 144

this appeal by remitting the issue to the file of the Ld. AO for consideration of the same afresh upon granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and upon considering the evidences on record or any other evidence which the assessee may choose to file at the time

Louis Vuitton India Retail Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle-1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4348/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra(Ita No. 4348/Del/2024 (A.Y. 2020-21) Louis Vuitton India Vs. Dcit Retail Private Limited Circle-1(1) 901-A, 9Th Floor, Time Gurgaon, Tower, Mg Road, Haryana Gurgaon, Haryana Pan: Aaacl8230E Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 253(1)Section 928Section 92D

will determine the ALP of such an international transaction in the light of the relevant judicial position, after allowing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5.3 It is further clarified that if a situation for determining the ALP of AMP expenses arises, then no transfer pricing adjustment

Aashiyana Infrastructure Development Private Limited, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 3033/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahmanaashiyana Infrastructure Development Vs. Ito, Ward 1 (2), Private Limited, Delhi. Plot No.830, Near Asian Hospital, Sector 21A, Faridabad – 121 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Aafca2236A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate Shri Sumit Lal Chandani, Advocate Shri Shivam Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2025 Date Of Order : 28.05.2025 O R D E R 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 24.04.2024 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2012-13 On 28.09.2012 Declaring Income Of Rs.31,22,410/- Which Was Revised On 21.09.2013 At An Income Of Rs.22,16,310/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

case, the ITO, Ward 1(2), Delhi has erred in passing the impugned assessment order without giving the Appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard and the same is in clear violation of principle of natural justice. 18. That the evidence filed and materials available on record have not been

Tejinder Singh, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 2(4), Faridabad

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 1852/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandrashri Tejinder Singh Vs. The I.T.O 596, Sector -15 Ward - 2(4) Faridabad, Haryana Faridabad

For Appellant: Shri Gian Bhardwaj, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)

Tejinder Singh [A.Y 2015-16] restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide the issues afresh after allowing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. The ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide the issues afresh after affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being

Vikas Joshi, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 5(2)(5), Noida

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 2241/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

justice and fair play we restored the matter to the file before the A.O. to decide the matter as afresh after giving the opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 8. Inthe result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Imsofer Manufacturing India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. ACIT, Circle-12(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 7924/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Deval, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C(2)

opinion that this issue be restored back to the file of Assessing Officer to decide afresh as per law, after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We direct and order accordingly. 8. Ground No.3 raised by the assessee is premature, hence the same is dismissed

Rajput Panchayat Dharmshala, Haridwar, Uttrakhand vs. ITO (Exemption) Dehradun, Dehradun

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

ITA 189/DDN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 11Section 12(1)(b)Section 12(1)(ba)Section 12ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 154

audit report in Form 10B before 01.04.2018; therefore, another ITRs along with Form 10B would have been filed had the AO afforded an opportunity of being heard in accordance with the provisions of section 139(9) of the Act. Since the AO-CPC did not provide any opportunity to cure

Rajput Panchayat Dharmshala, Haridwar, Uttrakhand vs. ITO (Exemption) Dehradun, Dehradun

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

ITA 186/DDN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 11Section 12(1)(b)Section 12(1)(ba)Section 12ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 154

audit report in Form 10B before 01.04.2018; therefore, another ITRs along with Form 10B would have been filed had the AO afforded an opportunity of being heard in accordance with the provisions of section 139(9) of the Act. Since the AO-CPC did not provide any opportunity to cure

Vandana Bhura, Bikaner vs. ITO, Ward, Nokha

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 86/JODH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, HonʼBle & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

Section 250

Supreme Court of India in the case of Tin Box Company vs. CIT reported in 249 ITR 216 has observed as under: "Assessment - Opportunity of being heard - Setting aside of assessment Assessment order must be made after the assessee has been given reasonable opportunity of setting out his case - Same ... adjudicate the appeal of the assessee afresh by addressing the grounds of appeal on merit of the case after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and considering the written submissions and documentary evidences filed on record and may be filed in the de novo appellate proceedings

Ghanshyam Lal Dhakad, Bhilwara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Bhilwara

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 111/JODH/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

Section 144Section 148Section 250

Company vs. CIT reported in 249 ITR 216 in which their Lordships of Supreme Court of India observed as under: "Assessment - Opportunity of being heard - Setting aside of assessment Assessment order must be made after the assessee has been given reasonable opportunity of setting out his case - Same not done ... adjudicate the appeal of the assessee afresh by addressing the grounds of appeal on merit of the case after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and considering the written submissions and documentary evidences filed on record and may be filed in the de novo appellate proceedings

Chetan Ram, Bhitu Bhimji vs. Income Tax Officer, Barmer

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA

ITA 74/JODH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 May 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) rejected the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has not paid the advance-tax or has not discharged the obligation for payment of disputed tax, thereby contravening the provisions of section 249(4)(a) of the Act. So, the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in an exparte order passed without considering the assessee's submission. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an

For Appellant: Shri Amit KothariFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl.CIT (Sr.DR.)
Section 144Section 144oSection 249(4)(a)Section 250Section 69A

prejudice the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A). It is also directed that the assessee be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard during the remand proceedings. Conversely, the assessee is expected to act diligently and cooperate fully to ensure the prompt disposal of the appeal

Rais Ahmed Mewafarosh, Dungarpur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2 Udaipur, Udaipur

In the result both these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 639/JODH/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

Section 115Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

observing that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee has failed to produce the books of account and details even after given final opportunity of being heard in the form of show cause notice dated 11/02/2021. Therefore, the books results shown by the assessee is not reliable and true and correct

Rais Ahmed Mewafarosh, Dungarpur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Udaipur

In the result both these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 638/JODH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

Section 115Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

observing that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee has failed to produce the books of account and details even after given final opportunity of being heard in the form of show cause notice dated 11/02/2021. Therefore, the books results shown by the assessee is not reliable and true and correct

Laxmi Narayan Pareek, Bikaner vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Bikaner

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 600/JODH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

Section 250

Company vs. CIT reported in 249 ITR 216 in which their Lordships of Supreme Court of India observed as under: "Assessment - Opportunity of being heard - Setting aside of assessment - Assessment order must be made after the assessee has been given reasonable opportunity of setting out his case - Same not done ... adjudicate the appeal of the assessee afresh by addressing the grounds of appeal on merit of the case after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and considering the written submissions and documentary evidences filed on record and may be filed in the de novo appellate proceedings

Shri Vakeel Singh S/O.Sh.Chhota Singh, Mansa vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), Mansa

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

ITA 634/ASR/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Sh. J. K. Gupta, Adv
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 249(3)Section 250

grounds of appeal and to fully cooperate with the first appellate authority in appellate proceedings. The assessee shall be allowed reasonable opportunity of being heard, (and necessary report may be called for by the ld. first appellate authority if required). 6 I.T.A. No. 634/Asr/2024 Assessment Year

Nazia Dar, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Katra

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

ITA 631/ASR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Sh. Upender Bhat, C.A
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 249(3)Section 250Section 69

grounds of appeal contained in the memorandum of appeal on merits of the case. 11. The assessee will be allowed reasonable opportunity of being heard. 12. We have not expressed any opinion on merits. 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order

Ashok Tiwari, Siwan vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2 (3), Siwan

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

ITA 28/PAT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna27 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 28/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Ashok Tiwari,………………….……..……..………Appellant Nirala Nagar, Near Junior Sikshak Sangh, Behind Adda No. 1, Siwan, Bihar [Pan:Aecpt0627G] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………….…………...Respondent Ward-2(3), Siwan, Office At Income Tax Office, Dak Bunglow Road, Siwarn-841226, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Abhishek Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kumar Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: May 01, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 27, 2025 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

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