← 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

Nathmal Jee Foundation, Jaipur vs. CIT (Exemption), Jaipur

ITA 77/JPR/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 May 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Rajeev Sogani, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Ojha, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

pronouncements relied upon by the assessee and a speaking order on the facts and law is to be passed after giving a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. It is observed that the assessee never produced the documents relating to Rule 17 of the Rules alongwith Form

Nathmal Jee Foundation, Jaipur vs. CIT (Exemption), Jaipur

ITA 76/JPR/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 May 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Rajeev Sogani, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Ojha, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

pronouncements relied upon by the assessee and a speaking order on the facts and law is to be passed after giving a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. It is observed that the assessee never produced the documents relating to Rule 17 of the Rules alongwith Form

Mulshi Dharan Vibhag Shikshan Mandal, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 2583/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 May 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandramulshi Dharan Vibhag Shikshan The Cit (Exemption), Pune Mandal Vs. At Post Male, Tal Mulashi, Dist Pune – 412108 Pan: Aactm6856C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pramod S Shingte Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 06-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(vi)

Income Tax Act, 1961 should not be cancelled. The assessee was requested to submit compliance by 14/10/2024. 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 compliance ... show cause notice nor availed the opportunity of being heard. 5. The information / details were called for under the provisions of sub-clause (a) of clause (ii) of second proviso to section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. These are the basic details required to ascertain the overall

Shri Dnyaneshwar Trust, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 2582/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 May 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrashri Dnyaneshwar Trust The Cit (Exemption), Pune At Dnyaneshwar Nagar, Dnyaneshwar Ssk Ltd., Post Vs. Bhende Sk, Newasa-Shevgaon Road Nevasa, Ahemdnagar - 414605 Pan: Aabts1962N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pramod S Shingte Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 06-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(vi)

Income Tax Act, 1961 should not be cancelled. The assessee was requested to submit compliance by 22/10/2024. 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 compliance ... show cause notice nor availed the opportunity of being heard. 5. The information / details were called for under the provisions of sub-clause (a) of clause (ii) of second proviso to section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. These are the basic details required to ascertain the overall

Nilkanteshwar Serva Sevasangh, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 2581/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 May 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandranilkanteshwar Serva Sevasangh The Cit (Exemption), Shivnagar, Baramati, Tal. Baramati Vs. Pune Dist. Pune – 413116 Pan: Aaatn0849A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pramod S Shingte Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 06-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(vi)

Income Tax Act, 1961 should not be cancelled. The assessee was 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 compliance ... show cause notice nor availed the opportunity of being heard. 5. The information / details were called for under the provisions of sub-clause (a) of clause (ii) of second proviso to section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. These are the basic details required to ascertain the overall

Swati Balasahebpukale, Pune vs. ITO Ward-6(1), Pune

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

ITA 2093/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B Phadke, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 69A

restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to decide the impugned issues afresh on merits after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. The Ld. DR had no objection to the above request of the Ld. AR. 9. We have heard the Ld. Representatives ... /NFAC, Delhi and restore the matter back to his file for adjudication afresh and pass speaking order on merits after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. Needless to say, the assessee shall provide the requisite support in terms of submitting the relevant documents/ evidence

Lokenath Foundation, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 150/KOL/2025[--]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 May 2025

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Roma Chaudhury, Sr. DR

issues in both appeals are restored to the file of the ld.CIT(E) for readjudication the issues afresh after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. 5. In the result, both appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 19/05/2025

Lokenath Foundation, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 149/KOL/2025[--]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 May 2025

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Roma Chaudhury, Sr. DR

issues in both appeals are restored to the file of the ld.CIT(E) for readjudication the issues afresh after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. 5. In the result, both appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 19/05/2025

Smt. Kajari Banerjee, Kolkata vs. ITO Ward-29(1), Kolktat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 130/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 50(2)(X)Section 56Section 56(2)(X)

date of respective allotment letters. In the limited set aside, the AO shall take appropriate decision in accordance with law after affording adequate opportunity of being heard. 9. In assessee's case the advance payment is made through account payee check and the allotment letter with the terms of balance

Madhu Jayanti International Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2561/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2561/Kol/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2021-2022) Madhu Jayanti International Vs Dcit, Circle-4(1), Kolkata Pvt. Limited, Biowonder, 15Th Floor, 789, Em Bypass, Anandapur East Kolkata Pan No. : Aabcm 7502 R (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Hitesh Goyal, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Praveen Kishore, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 19/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 17.10.2024, Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S.144C(13) Read With Section 144B Of The Act By The Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Passed In Din No.Itba/Ast/S/143(3)/2024-25/1069739762(1) For The Assessment Year 2021-2022. 2. Shri Hitesh Goyal, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Praveen Kishore, Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. The Assessee Has Filed An Adjournment Application Wherein It Is Mentioned That The Assessment Is Time Barred & The Assessee Is Relying Upon The Judgment Of The Hon’Ble Bombay High Court In The Case Of Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Limited Vs. Acit, Passed In W.P.No.2340 Of 2021. In The Adjournment Application He Has Also Mentioned That The Issue Is Now

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh Goyal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 92C

issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld. DRP for passing a speaking order after providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 3 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open

Onkar Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD. 1(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes subject to above directions

ITA 139/KOL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Aman Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Bonnie Debbarma, Sr. DR

restore the issues in this appeal to the file of Id. CIT(A) for readjudicating the issues afresh after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. However, looking to the non-cooperation of the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings even after issuance of notices to the assessee

Aa533 Umareddiyur Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Erode vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1) Erode, Erode

ITA 2784/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

confirmed the order of the AO. The relevant finding of the CIT(A) reads as follows:- The assessee was given fresh opportunity of being heard vide letter dated 21.06.2024 and 25.07.2024. The submission of the assessee has been considered and the appeal is decided as below: Ground

Shri Lingam, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1549/CHNY/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1544 To 1549/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-20

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar &For Respondent: Ms. T. M. Suganthamala, C.I.T
Section 153ASection 153C

directed to render all the details required by the AO and comply with his notices. The AO on his part would offer sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. All the issues raised in the present batch of appeals including the validity of assumption of jurisdiction u/s.153C

Shri Lingam, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Cirlce-1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1548/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1544 To 1549/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-20

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar &For Respondent: Ms. T. M. Suganthamala, C.I.T
Section 153ASection 153C

directed to render all the details required by the AO and comply with his notices. The AO on his part would offer sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. All the issues raised in the present batch of appeals including the validity of assumption of jurisdiction u/s.153C

Shri Lingam, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 1(2). Chennai, Chennai

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

ITA 1547/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1544 To 1549/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-20

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar &For Respondent: Ms. T. M. Suganthamala, C.I.T
Section 153ASection 153C

directed to render all the details required by the AO and comply with his notices. The AO on his part would offer sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. All the issues raised in the present batch of appeals including the validity of assumption of jurisdiction u/s.153C

Shri Lingam, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1546/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1544 To 1549/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-20

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar &For Respondent: Ms. T. M. Suganthamala, C.I.T
Section 153ASection 153C

directed to render all the details required by the AO and comply with his notices. The AO on his part would offer sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. All the issues raised in the present batch of appeals including the validity of assumption of jurisdiction u/s.153C

Shri Lingam, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1 (2), Chennai

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

ITA 1545/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1544 To 1549/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-20

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar &For Respondent: Ms. T. M. Suganthamala, C.I.T
Section 153ASection 153C

directed to render all the details required by the AO and comply with his notices. The AO on his part would offer sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. All the issues raised in the present batch of appeals including the validity of assumption of jurisdiction u/s.153C

Shri Lingam, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Cricle-1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1544/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1544 To 1549/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-20

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar &For Respondent: Ms. T. M. Suganthamala, C.I.T
Section 153ASection 153C

directed to render all the details required by the AO and comply with his notices. The AO on his part would offer sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. All the issues raised in the present batch of appeals including the validity of assumption of jurisdiction u/s.153C

Neere Bailur Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Sangha N, Udupi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 and Tps, Udupi, Karnataka

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

ITA 1518/BANG/2024[AY 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 May 2025

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sriram V Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 56Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Therefore I restore the appeal back to the file of the ld. CIT(Appeals) for deciding the issue on merits after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court

Prasanth Sunil Kumar Bohra, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 20(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 6725/Mum/2024 is allowed

ITA 2303/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 148Section 151Section 234BSection 274Section 69

failed to consider that assessment order passed without considering the reply of appellant is against the principal of opportunity of being heard and makes order null and void. 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming charging of Interest ... failed to consider that assessment order passed without considering the reply of appellant is against the principal of opportunity of being heard and makes order null and void. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming charging of Interest under