“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

Yalamarthi Lakshmi, Yanam vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward- 1, Kakinada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 189/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.189/Viz/2025 (धनिाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Yalamarthi Lakshmi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Yanam. Ward-1, Pan: Abhpy4417B Kakinada. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of : 20/05/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 249Section 249(4)(b)Section 28

matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A)-NFAC with a direction to decide the case on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with the principles of natural justice. At the same breath, we also hereby caution the assessee to promptly

Sita Rama Raju Sagi, Bhimavaram vs. ITO Ward 1 Bhimavaram, Bhimavaram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 154/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.154/Viz/2025 (धनिाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-21) Sita Rama Raju Sagi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhimavaram – 534202. Ward-1, Pan: Egapa3925J Bhimavaram. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mrs. Hema Latha K, Ca प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of : 20/05/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Mrs. Hema Latha K, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

rather than income from house property. The Ld. PCIT therefore directed the Ld. AO to re-do the assessment by providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee by re- computing the assessee’s income by treating the house property income as professional income and also denying

Hema Kumar Dogiparathi, Kuttikattukara vs. ITO, Ward-3, Aluva

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

ITA 1163/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Smt.Divya Ravindran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR

Section 143(1)Section 68

deciding afresh in accordance with law. Needless to say, the ld.CIT(A) shall afford meaningful 4 ITA No.1163/Coch/2024. Hema Kumar Dogiparthi. opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing any order. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

The Kozhippara Service Coop Bank Limited, Kozhippara vs. ITO, Ward-5, Palakkad

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

ITA 1158/COCH/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR

Section 139Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

entitled for deduction of sec.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the CPC has erred in disallowing this deduction without providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Another argument of the assessee was that disallowance of deduction u/s.80P is a debatable issue and hence could not have ... operative Bank Ltd. & Ors. v. CIT & Anr. Reported in (2021) 431 ITR 1 (SC). Needless to say, the AO shall afford meaningful opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing any order. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

The Asamannoor Agricultural Improvement Co-Operative Society Ltd, Ernakulam vs. ITO, Ward 1 & Tps, Aluva

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

ITA 1109/COCH/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.C.A.Jojo, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 250(6)Section 80A(5)Section 80P(2)(a)

Range Kallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozhilali Sahakarana Sangham v. CIT (2023) 459 ITR 730 (Ker.). Needless to say, the ld.CIT(A) shall afford meaningful opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing any order. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order

Nirmalabhavan Higher Secondary School, Kowdiar vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Thiruvanthapuram

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

ITA 1107/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR

Section 250(6)

opinion that this matter requires fresh consideration at the end of the ld.CIT(A). Needless to say, the ld.CIT(A) shall afford meaningful opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing any order. We order accordingly. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Aloor Thomas Joy, Thrissur vs. ITO, Ward International Taxation, Kochi

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

ITA 1106/COCH/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Smt.Divya Ravindran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR

Section 147Section 148ASection 249(4)(b)

file of the ld.CIT(A) for examining afresh, in accordance with law. Needless to say, the ld.CIT(A) shall afford meaningful opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing any order. 3 ITA No.1106/Coch/2024. Aloor Thomas Joy. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Kadavath Peedikayil Ashraf, Kannur vs. ITO, Ward-3, Kannur

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

ITA 1105/COCH/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR

Section 147Section 148ASection 249(4)(b)

file of the ld.CIT(A) for examining afresh, in accordance with law. Needless to say, the ld.CIT(A) shall afford meaningful opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing any order. 3 ITA No.1105/Coch/2024. Kadavath Peedikayil Ashraf. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Gajendra Nath Srivastav Through L/H Vipin Devi Srivastav, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 313/JPR/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh,JCIT-DR

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 153(3)Section 251Section 69ASection 80C

well-established judicial principle enshrined in the dictum audi alteram partem that the other party must be given adequate opportunity of being heard before the authorities arrive at any conclusion in respect of the case of that other party. It may be pointed out that the Finance (No.2 ... novo assessment LATE GAJENDRA NATH SRIVASTAV THRU: L/H SMT.VIPIN DEVI SRIVASTAV VS ITO WARD 2(1), AJMER by providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with the principles of natural and in accordance with law. The apple of discord in this case is that the assessee

Shanti Niketan Shiksha Samiti, Mathura vs. CIT(Exemption), Lucknow

ITA 18/LKW/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 May 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARY

Sharvan Kumar, Hisar vs. ITO, Ward-2, Fatehabad

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

ITA 1203/CHANDI/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)

appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the same afresh after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 7.1 Accordingly, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside, and the matter is restored to the file

Vidyarthi Ashram, Gandhinagar vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 425/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 May 2025

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT. DR

Section 12ASection 5Section 80GSection 80G(5)

satisfied, pass an order in writing, rejecting such application and cancelling its approval, if any, after affording it a reasonable opportunity of being heard (ii) where the application is made under sub-clause (A) of clause (iv) of the said proviso or the application is made under clause ... wrong section code inadvertently while filing the application for final registration in Form 10AB. Further, we notice that assessee did not have the opportunity of being heard before ld. CIT(E) due to incorrect course of action advised, which otherwise assessee might have explained the facts to avoid the impugned

Patodia Forgings Gears Limited, Pune vs. The DCIT Circle-8, Pune

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

ITA 2745/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 May 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Sarvesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai-Addl.CIT(DR)

Section 270A

decision afresh on merits in accordance with law taking into account the outcome of the assessee’s appeal on quantum after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. We order accordingly. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

Yadagiri Tattari, Hyderabad vs. JCIT., Range-15, Hyderabad

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

ITA 474/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Shri D. Praveen, Sr. AR

Section 269Section 269SSection 271Section 271D

cash and accordingly, a show cause notice dated 27.08.2019 was issued and served on the assessee. Due to change in incumbent, an opportunity of being heard were given to the assessee vide it’s letter dated 01.02.2020. There has been no compliance from the assessee to the said notice. Therefore ... show cause letter was issued to the assessee vide letter in F.No. Addl. CIT/R-15/ 269SS/2019-20 dated 27.08.2019. Due to change in incumbent, an opportunity of being heard was given to the assessee vide this office letter dated: 01.02.2020. However, there had been no compliance from the assessee, to the said

Kakoli Ganguly, Legal Heir of Haradhan Halder, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 12(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 314/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.314/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Kakoli Ganguly, Legal Heir Of Haradhan Halder.…………… ….……….Appellant 33, Banamanli Naskar Road, Kolkata – 700060. [Pan: Adypg8773F] Vs. Ito, Ward-12(1), Kolkata……………....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Gaurav Mathur, Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Archana Gupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 20, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 25.11.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 14 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Such Delay Explaining Reasons For The Delay. We, After Perusing The Petition Made In The Application, Satisfy That There Were Bona Fide & Sufficient Reasons For Such Delay. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay & Admit This Appeal For Adjudication.

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

whole issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to re-examine the matter on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to strictly comply with the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) as and when

Gopi Krishan Kejriwal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 43(1), Kolkata

ITA 224/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

For Appellant: A.K. Tirbriwal, FCAFor Respondent: Prakash Nath Barnwal, CIT-DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Indian Coal Agency, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-35, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 868/KOL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 14A

order recomputing the assessee’s income taking into consideration the reasons leading to the action u/s 263 of the Act after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He also cautioned the Ld. AO that the discretion must be exercised legally and not absolutely even though the Assessing

Indian Coal Agency, Kolkata vs. Principal CIT, Circle - 12, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 867/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 14A

DCIT, Circle-35, Kolkata vs. M/S. Indian Coal Agency, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 1258/KOL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 14A

Sri. Vikram Shetty, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the grounds of appeal are restored back to the ld

ITA 2170/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel

Section 144Section 54Section 90

another grievance, highlighting that an order under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act. 1961, was passed without affording the Appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard and the Appellant had consistently maintained that he was not guilty of any wrongdoing and had not availed of any incorrect sections, thereby