“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

Anca International LLP, New Friends Colony vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2020-21 stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3779/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 147Section 28

Assessment year 2020-21 should also be 4 | P a g e given. Needless to add that the assessee should be given adequate opportunity of being heard. 6. In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2020-21 stand allowed for statistical purposes. 7. As regards appeals relating

Anca International LLP, New Friends Colony, New Delhi vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi, India

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2020-21 stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3778/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 147Section 28

Vishal Datt, Jabalpur vs. ACIT Circle 2(1), Jabalpur

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 79/JAB/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur21 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Seth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. CIT(DR)

without adverting to the grounds raised and deciding the issue on merits. It is well settled law that the assessee should be given opportunity of being heard for effectively representing his case. At the same time, the Ld. CIT(A) is under legal obligation to pass a speaking order

Vishal Datt, Jablpur vs. ACIT Circle 2(1), Jabalpur

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

ITA 78/JAB/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Seth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. CIT(DR)

Vishal Datt, Jabalpur vs. ACIT Circle2(1), Jabalpur

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

ITA 77/JAB/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur21 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Seth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. CIT(DR)

Gosal Sagar Helping Hand Foundation, Jabalpur vs. CIT Excemption, Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 47/JAB/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur21 May 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2024-25 Gosal Sagar Helping Hand Cit Exemption V. Foundation Income Tax Department, C/O Mujahid Ansari & Co., Cit Exemptions, Bhopal Mominpura Street, Gohalpur- (Mp). 482002. Pan:Aagag6146G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 20 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21 05 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. CIT(DR)

Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

registration accordingly. Alternatively, the matter may kindly be remanded back to the CIT(exemption) for fresh adjudication after affording the Appellant a fair opportunity of being heard. 9. Any other relief deemed fit by this Honorable Tribunal may kindly be granted in the interest of justice. 10. The Appellant craves

Anil Kumar Jain, Bina vs. Income Tax Officer Bina, Bina

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 18/JAB/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur21 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Anil Kumar Jain, Vs. Ito, Bina 7, Shrut Nilay Chaitanya Dham, Bina, Madhya Pradesh Pan:Abzpj8271G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Sapan Usrethe, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.05.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 14.03.2023 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ito, Bina Dated 22.12.2017. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Order Of The Learned Lower Authorities Are Vitiated On Several Grounds Hence The Same May Kindly Be Quashed. 2. That The Delay In Filing Of Appeal Be Kindly Condoned. 3. That The Order Of The Learned Lower Authorities Passed Are Unlawful & Illegal. 4. That The Learned Lower Authorities Were Not Justified In Not Allowing Proper & Meaningful Opportunity Of Being Heard. Also The Learned Cit (Appeals), National Faceless E-Appeal Centre, Was Also Not Justified In Not Allowing Any Opportunity Of Personal Hearing Through Digital Media Before Confirming The Disallowance. 5. That The Various Findings Of The Learned Lower Authorities Are Opposed To The Facts Hence The Same May Kindly Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Sh. Sapan Usrethe, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR

Section 250

learned lower authorities passed are unlawful and illegal. 4. That the learned lower authorities were not justified in not allowing proper and meaningful opportunity of being heard. Also the Learned CIT (Appeals), National Faceless E-Appeal Centre, was also not justified in not allowing any opportunity of personal hearing through

Helpful Ngo Welfare Society, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward( Exemptions), Jalandhar

ITA 690/ASR/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 May 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, Adv

Section 80G

case, the order passed be Worthy CIT (E) deserves to be quashed, since the same has been passed without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 3. That the appellant craves leave for any addition, deletion or amendment in the grounds of appeal on or before the disposal

Humaira Iftikhar, Jawahar Nagar Sringar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), Srinagar

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

ITA 667/ASR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Tanveer Altaf Qadri, C.A

Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

adjudication on merits of the case on the ground contained in Form No. 35, after allowing a proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. (Notice to be issued as per provision of section 282 (read with rule 127 of I.T. Rule, 62). The assessee is also directed

Shri Mohmmad Abbas Boda, Anantnag vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(4), Anantnag

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

ITA 665/ASR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Upender Bhat, C. A

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

file all evidences and submission to explain his case and to fully cooperate in appellate proceedings. 12. The assessee will be allowed reasonable opportunity of being heard. 13. We have not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and all contentions are left open. 14. In the result

Dilawar Kochay, Anantnag vs. Income Tax Officer Anantnag, Anantnag

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

ITA 48/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Vaseem Ahmad, C. A

Section 144Section 144ASection 250(6)Section 69A

assessee has not mentioned on which action of AO he is aggrieved. The said ground reads as "The AO has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard taking into account the prevailing situation in the valley when all communication was disrupted and economic activity had come to a standstill following ... justified in taking recourse to the provisions of section 144 of the Income Tax Act as He was not being given an opportunity of being heard. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the addition made by JAO without evaluating the information/records

Shri Tajinder Kumar, Batala vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Batala

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 290/ASR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv

Section 147Section 250(6)

order of Ld CIT(A) is liable to be cancelled and the addition made may be deleted. 3. That no reasonable and proper opportunity of being heard was allowed by the Assessing Officer before passing the order. Similarly, the worthy CIT(A) has 3 I.T.A. Nos. 289& 290/Asr/2024 Assessment Year ... adjudication on the grounds of appeal contained in form 35, on merits of the case, after allowing proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee is also directed to file all necessary documentary evidences and submissions before the Ld CIT ( A ) in support

Shri Tajinder Kumar, Batala vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Batala

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 289/ASR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv

Section 147Section 250(6)

Smt. Ranjana Bajpai, Allahabad vs. DCIT/ACIT Circle 1(!), Allahabad

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

ITA 150/ALLD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SH. SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajit Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 144Section 250

Assessing Officer, after taking into account all relevant material which the Assessing Officer has gathered, shall, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard, make the of the total income or loss to the best of his judgment and determine the sum payable by the assessee on the basis ... applicable to the relevant assessment year." That a bare perusal of the section reveals that the appellant was not given the reasonable opportunity of being heard, The Ld. A.O. has completely ignored the fact that the appellant was genuinely ill and even hospitalized, due to her illness

Murli Rijhwani, Tilda Raipur vs. ITO, Raipur

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

ITA 245/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 245/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Murli Rijhwani 180/1, Setpai Nagar, Tilda, Raipur (C.G.)-493 113 Pan: Afopr0656J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Poptani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 3Section 69A

justice, one of them is “audi alterm partem” which mandates that before taking any action against the party, they must be given an opportunity to be heard and present their case. 7. The right to be heard is the cornerstone of natural justice and in this regard in the case ... considered view that the approach of the High Court in making the observations against the appellant without giving him any opportunity of being heard is totally unsustainable in law.” The bench went on to delete the entire portion of the high court’s order that contained the contentious remarks

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai vs. Rashmi Lakhotia, Durg

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of over aforesaid observations

ITA 244/RPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 244/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2020-21)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69Section 69A

within a period of 3 months from receipt of this order. 10. Needless to say, the assessee shall be afforded with reasonable opportunity of being heard in the set aside appellate proceedings. The assessee as conceded through its authorized representative before us, also directed to cooperate and assist proactively

Sandeep Kaur Gill, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3 (1), Raipur

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of over aforesaid observations

ITA 237/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 237/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

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

Tribal Educational Agricultural and Medical Society, Suryapara, Sitapur, Sarguja vs. Income Tax Officer-1, Ambikapur

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

ITA 231/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.231/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Tribal Educational Agricultural & Medical Society Suryapara, Sitapur, Sarguja (C.G.)-497 111 Pan: Aacat2764M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1, Ambikapur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

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

Hotel Satlaj, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Raipur

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

ITA 228/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.227 & 228/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Hotel Satlaj Jail Road Kutchery Chowk, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aadfh3600A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 5

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 ... 228/RPR/2025 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

Hotel Satlaj, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Raipur

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

ITA 227/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 May 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 5

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 ... 228/RPR/2025 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