“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

Baba Banda Bahadur Jan Sewa Samiti, Hisar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chandigarh

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

ITA 167/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 12ASection 80G

rejected the application for registration u/s 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) without giving any opportunity of being heard to the assessee and is against the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the notices stated to be issued ... assessee. Accordingly, He prayed that this issue may be remitted back to the ld. CIT(E) with the prayer to give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Similarly, the application filed for registration u/s 80G was also rejected in absence of registration u/s 12AB

National Solar Energy Federation of India, New Delhi vs. CIT (Exemption), New Delhi

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

ITA 141/DEL/2025[AY 2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2025

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmannational Solar Energy Federation Of India, Vs. Cit (Exemption), 135 – 137, Rectangle 1, D 4, New Delhi. Saket, New Delhi – 110 017. (Pan : Aabtn8293P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manoj Pahwa, Ca Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.05.2025 Date Of Order : 13.05.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemption), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (E)] Dated 18.12.2024 For Assessment Year 2023-24 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Rejection Order Dated 12.12.2024 Was Passed Without Providing Adequate Time For Compliance With The Notice Dated 06.12,2024. The Appellant Acted Promptly Upon Becoming Aware Of The Notice & Filed A Request For An Extension On The Very Same Day 12.12.2024. The Rejection Order Passed Thereafter Disregarded The Appellant'S Timely Request. This Action Is Arbitrary & Violates The Principles Of Natural Justice. The Appellant Had Duly Responded To Previous Notices Dated 04.07.2024, 13.09.2024 & 18.11.2024, Furnishing The Required

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Pahwa, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

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

facts in this case and collect the relevant information from the assessee and grant the registration as per law, after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court

Shantichandra Trust, New Delhi vs. CIT (Exemption) Delhi, Delhi

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

ITA 137/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanshantichandra Trust, Vs. Cit (Exemption), D – 155, First Floor, Delhi. Surajmal Vihar, Delhi – 110 092. (Pan : Aauts5222J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jauhar Cain, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.05.2025 Date Of Order : 13.05.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(E)”, For Short] Dated 27.12.2024 For The Ay 2024-25. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar For The Assessee Brought To Our Notice That The Assessee Has Filed All The Documents Asked For Vide Questionnaire Issued On 08.07.2024 & 16.12.2024. He Submitted That Rejection Of Application U/S 80G(5)(Iii) By The Ld. Cit (E) Is Not Maintainable As Assessee Submitted

For Appellant: Shri Jauhar Cain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 80G(5)(iii)

assessee and prayed that this issue may be remitted back to the ld. CIT(E) with the prayer to give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 3. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue objected to the submissions of the ld. counsel for the assessee ... assessee. In our considered view and in the interest of justice, assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard on merit. Therefore, we direct ld. CIT (E) to give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue on merit as per law. We also

Satypal, Meerut vs. ITO, Meerut

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

ITA 135/DEL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmansatypal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhaisali, Ground Near Roadway Bus Depot, Meerut. Meerut – 250 002 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Kdsps5813L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kumar Gandharv Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ramesh Chand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.05.2025 Date Of Order : 13.05.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 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 29.11.2024 For The Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. At The Outset, It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar For The Assessee That Assessing Officer Has Passed The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) Without

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Gandharv Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Chand, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

remit back the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer with the directions to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, for which Ld. DR has no objection. Assessee is directed through his counsel to fully cooperate with the AO during

Sadhna Sharma, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 40(4), Delhi

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

ITA 132/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansadhna Sharma, Vs. Ito, Ward 40 (4), C/O Malik & Co. (Advisors & Advocates), Delhi. S – 258, Greater Kailash – 1, New Delhi – 110 048. (Pan : Atvp0517Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ramesh Chand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.05.2025 Date Of Order : 13.05.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 25.07.2023 For Assessment Year 2016-17 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Appellant-Assessee Denies Her Liability To Be Assessed At An Income Of Rs.1,20,87,440/- Against The Returned Income Of Rs.6,19,650/- & Thus Denies Its Liability To Pay Tax, Interest And/Or Penalty Thereon.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Chand, Sr. DR

Section 234ASection 250

consider the facts in this case and collect the relevant information from the assessee and decide as per law, after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also direct assessee to make proper submissions and appear before the ld.CIT (A) on the date of hearing and cooperate

Anita Shokeen, Dwarka vs. Income Tax Officer, Jhandewala

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

ITA 12/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

relying on the order of Assessing Officer ex-parte. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we direct ld. CIT (A) to give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue on merit as per law. We also direct assessee to make proper submissions and appear before

Anita Shokeen, Dwarka vs. Income Tax Officer, Jhandewala

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

ITA 11/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

Loops N Style Exports Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3846/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250(6)

justice, this Bench deems it fit and proper to direct the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh upon granting further opportunity of being heard to the assessee to represent its case before it effectively. Thus, this appeal is disposed of by remitting the same to the file ... consideration of the issue afresh and to pass a reasoned order by granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and upon considering the evidence available on record or any 4 A.Y. 2017-18 other evidence which the assessee may choose to file at the time of hearing

Neeraj Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-63(2), Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3231/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 144Section 250(6)

matter requires to be remitted back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for consideration of the issue afresh by granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and upon considering the evidence on record or any other evidence which the assessee may choose to file at the time

Uttranchal Iron & Ispat Ltd., Kotdwar vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(4)(1), Rishikesh

In the result, this appeal of the assessee (ITA No

ITA 4201/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145(3)Section 80

order passed by CIT(A) are against the principles of natural justice and the same has been passed without affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard. 3. The addition/ disallowances made by the assessing officer are illegal, unjust, and highly excessive and are not based on any material ... opinion that the assessee has not discharged its primary onus of explaining the genuineness of the disputed sundry creditors. However, it deserves reasonable opportunity of being heard to make shortcomings or non-compliances. In view thereof, without offering any comment on merit of Uttranchal Iron & Ispat Ltd. the case

DCIT, Rishikesh vs. M/S Uttranchal Iron & Ispat Ltd., Kotdwar

In the result, this appeal of the assessee (ITA No

ITA 2078/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145(3)Section 80

S.B. Bhattacharjee Memorial Trust for Children Education, Digboi vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Dibrugarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 245/GTY/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati09 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234C

that the impugned order having been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice and without allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard, the same is bad in law and untenable. 12. For that the appellant craves leave of your honour to take additional ground or grounds of appeal and/or

Madhurika Dilipkumar Shah, Nadiad vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Nadiad

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

ITA 224/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P Srivastava, Sr DR

Section 250Section 69Section 69A

assessee has raised the following grounds of appeals: 1. The Appellate order passed by the Learned CIT (Appeals) is without giving adequate opportunity of being heard and against the principal of natural justice. 2. The Appellate order passed by the Learned CIT (Appeals) is one sided with the pre-conceive

Vishwas Comodity, Patan vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Patan

ITA 1681/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in passing an Ex-Parte Order dismissing the appeal without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Hence the same being against the principles of natural justice and equity requires to be quashed. 2. The Learned Commissioner

Naravatsinh Jagatsinh Chauhan, Mehsana vs. I.T.O. Ward 1, Patan

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

ITA 1255/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Respondent: Dr. Sanjay Kumar Lal, CIT-Dr and Ms.Trupti Patel, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

also submitted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals ex-parte without considering the substance of the assessee’s grievance, and that the opportunity to be heard on merits was effectively denied. In view of the peculiar facts of the case, including the assessee’s limited capacity, absence of documentary ... that the matters be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after furnishing the requisite material and affording reasonable opportunity of being heard. 9. The Departmental Representative raised no objection in restoring back all three appeal to the file of Assessing Officer. 10. We have carefully

Naravatsinh Jagatsinh Chauhan, Mehsana vs. I.T.O. Ward 1, Patan

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

ITA 1254/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Respondent: Dr. Sanjay Kumar Lal, CIT-Dr and Ms.Trupti Patel, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Naravatsinh Jagatsinh Chauhan, Mehsana vs. I.T.O. Ward 1, Patan

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

ITA 1253/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Respondent: Dr. Sanjay Kumar Lal, CIT-Dr and Ms.Trupti Patel, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Taj Sultana, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-13(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 51/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Smt. S. Sandhya, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Rakesh Chintagumpula

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

consider all the sources of cash deposits explained by the assessee and to pass a speaking and reasoned order after granting proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court

Nisarga Charitable Trust, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemptions, Bangalore

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

ITA 451/BANG/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Nagaraj, Trust PresidentFor Respondent: Shri E Shridhar, CIT (DR)

Section 12ASection 80G

aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to examine the assessee’s applications afresh, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 7. The assessee is directed to submit all relevant documents and cooperate in the proceedings. No unwarranted adjournments shall be entertained, and failure

Nisarga Charitable Trust, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemptions, Bangalore

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

ITA 450/BANG/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Nagaraj, Trust PresidentFor Respondent: Shri E Shridhar, CIT (DR)

Section 12ASection 80G