← 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

Balvir Mohan Mistry, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Navsari

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

ITA 8/SRT/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

case as well as on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in passing ex-parte order without giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned

Balvir Mohan Mistry, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Navsari

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

ITA 7/SRT/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

case as well as on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in passing ex-parte order without giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned

Aadivasi Sampsabha Charitable Trust, Surat vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 18/SRT/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

under sub clause (iii) of clause (ac) of sub- section (1) of section 12A of the income tax act, 1961, without providing an opportunity of being heard. 3. That the learned CIT(Exemption) has erred in passing the rejection order without considering the bona fide reason for non-compliance with ... application for registration under clause (iii) of sub-section (5) of section 80G of the income tax act, 1961, without providing an opportunity of being heard. 3. That the learned CIT(Exemption) has erred in passing the rejection order without considering the bona fide reason for non-compliance with

Aadivasi Sampsabha Charitable Trust, Surat vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 16/SRT/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

under sub clause (iii) of clause (ac) of sub- section (1) of section 12A of the income tax act, 1961, without providing an opportunity of being heard. 3. That the learned CIT(Exemption) has erred in passing the rejection order without considering the bona fide reason for non-compliance with ... application for registration under clause (iii) of sub-section (5) of section 80G of the income tax act, 1961, without providing an opportunity of being heard. 3. That the learned CIT(Exemption) has erred in passing the rejection order without considering the bona fide reason for non-compliance with

DCIT, Circle-1(3), Surat vs. Ranidan Meghraj Gandhi, Surat

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

ITA 886/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri P M Jagasheth, C.A
Section 144Section 250Section 68Section 69A

with the notices issued during the assessment proceedings and AO has passed order u/s 144 of the Act after giving numbers of the opportunity of being heard and submitting the evidences in his support on all the issues. (viii) On the facts and circumstances of the case ... Ld.CIT(A) has violated the principles of natural justice while admitting the additional evidences and not providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessing Officer as per the provisions of section 250(2} of the Income tax Act, 1961 and Rule 46A(3) of the income tax Rules

Vinod Kumar Dhanja, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 342/JPR/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 May 2025AY 2012-2013

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

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Jain C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

view that lis between the parties has to be decided on merits so that nobody’s rights could be scuttled down without providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the matter is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide it afresh by providing

Hare Krishna Movement Kota, Kota vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

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

ITA 211/JPR/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 May 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.211&210/JPR/2025 U/s 12AB and 80G of the Act निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2023-24 Hare Krishna Movement Plot No. 14, OCF, NH 27, Mukundra Vihar Kota - 324 007 बनाम | The CIT-Exemption, Vs. Jaipur. प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ACBAS 3236 L अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : ShriAnoop Bhatia, CA राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Shri Rajesh Ojha, C

For Appellant: ShriAnoop Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80G

hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee in both the appeals mainly submitted that the assessee was not provided with an adequate opportunity of being heard by the ld. CIT(E) and thus both the orders should be quashed being against the principles of natural justice, as only two notices ... circumstances of the case, the matter is restored to the file of the ld CIT(E) for afresh adjudication by providing adequate opportunity of being heard and the assessee is also required to submit the documents as demanded by the ld. CIT(E) with regard to registration of the Trust

Hare Krishna Movement Kota, Kota vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

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

ITA 210/JPR/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 May 2025AY 2023-24

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

For Appellant: ShriAnoop Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80G

hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee in both the appeals mainly submitted that the assessee was not provided with an adequate opportunity of being heard by the ld. CIT(E) and thus both the orders should be quashed being against the principles of natural justice, as only two notices ... circumstances of the case, the matter is restored to the file of the ld CIT(E) for afresh adjudication by providing adequate opportunity of being heard and the assessee is also required to submit the documents as demanded by the ld. CIT(E) with regard to registration of the Trust

Kanhiya Lal Choudhary, Todaraisingh vs. Commissioner of Incometax Appeals, Incometax Department Face Less

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

ITA 178/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 178/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Kanhiya Lal Choudhary Near Bus Stand, Todaraisingh Tonk Road, 304 001 बनाम Vs. DCIT Circle-7 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABAPC 0831 G अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri K.L. Moolchandani, ITP राजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT-DR Thru' VC सु

For Appellant: Shri K.L. Moolchandani, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 250Section 69C

that lis between the parties has to be decided on merits so that nobody’s rights could be scuttled down without providing the opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, the matter is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide it afresh by providing

Gck Stock Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 1(4), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1572/JPR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 May 2025AY 2015-2016
For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shaha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 234Section 250Section 271

clear that the JAO passed the order u/s 148A(d) (which is self-explanatory) within stipulated time and after giving proper opportunity of being heard. Further, statutory notices were issued to the assessee by NeFAC_ and in response the assesee filed written submission on 02.02.2023 and 06.05.2023. Opportunity for Personal ... needs to be quashed. 6. The Ld AR of the assessee as sailed the reopening on the basis of the fact that no opportunity of being heard was granted to the assessee before drawing adverse while passing order u/s.148A(d). 6.1 In this regard the Learned Authorised Representative

Mukesh Kumar Jaiswal, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 801/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow06 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144Section 253(3)Section 68

file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo assessment order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Learned Departmental Representative for Revenue expressed no objection. In view of the foregoing, the order of learned CIT(A) is set aside ... with I.T.A. No.801/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2017-18 3 the direction to pass de novo assessment order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. (E) In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open court on 06/05/2025

Mukesh Kumar Jindal, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer- 4(1), Lucknow

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

ITA 792/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow06 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.792/Lkw/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: 2018-19 Mukesh Kumar Jindal V. Ito-4(1) C-71, Nirala Nagar, Lucknow- Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 226020. 57, Ram Tirath Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Adqpj0319N अपीलाथ"/(Appellant) ""यथ"/(Respondent) अपीलाथ" "क और से/Appellant By: Shri Prashant Kr. Verma, Adv ""यथ" "क और से /Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) सुनवाई "क तार"ख / Date Of Hearing: 01 05 2025 घोषणा "क तार"ख/ Date Of 06 05 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Kr. Verma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

decision thereof is bad in law and liable to set aside. 2. Because the Ld. CIT(A) has erred while not giving adequate opportunity of being heard like thereof is bad in law and against the Principle of Natural Justice “Audi Alteram Partem’ of Constitution of India. Page ... NFAC), Delhi and Ld. AO without knowing the facts and circumstances of the appellant case and without giving proper opportunity of being heard that is the against the Principle of Natural Justice, so that I humble requested to you please set-aside the case. Section 250 6 of the Income

Kishna Ram, Sirmour Himachal Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer Nahan, Nahan

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

ITA 1108/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Laljee Agarjeet, C.A Ms. Meenu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr Ranjeet Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

allowable as deductions under section 43B of the Act. The assessee also contended that the adjustment was made without granting proper opportunity of being heard and challenged the disallowance as being contrary to the principles of natural justice and beneficial provisions of law. 5.1 The Ld. CIT(A), after considering

Sattarbhai Sulemanbhai Mansuri, Sabarkantha vs. The ITO, Ward-3, Himatnagar

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 469/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2014-15 Mr.Sattarbhai Sulemanbhai Mansuri Ito,Ward-3 Anjumarstrit Narth Gulam Floor Factri Vs. Himatnagar. Sarvoday Soc, Polo Ground Himatnagar Sabarkantha 383 001. (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Varis Isani, Advocate Assessee By : Shri Ravindra, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 50C(2)

circumstances of the case. He ought to have accepted the returned income. 3. The Lid. A.O. has not given proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant which is against the principle of national justice. 4. The Lid. CIT(A) has not verified documents and evidences submitted by the appellant

Mukeshbhai Hirabhai Prajapati, Kheda vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Nadiad

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

ITA 373/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2016-17 Mukeshbhai Hirabhai Prajapati Ito,Ward-1 A-1, Chandan Park Vs. Nadiad. B/H. Mai Mandir Opp: Alaknanda Society Nadiad 387 002, Dist: Kheda. Pan : Akxpp 3302 P (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri D.K. Parikh, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Ravindra, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr.DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication in accordance with law, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall MA No.373/Ahd/2025 5 ensure strict compliance and shall deposit the cost of Rs.5,000/- as directed above

Bhrugesh Atulvadan Lakhiara, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 329/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Bhavnasingh Gupta, Sr DR
Section 16A

raised the following grounds of appeals: 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not granting the adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant during the course of appellate proceedings, such opportunity should have been granted in the interest of justice. 2. The learned

Bhavesh Ramjeebhai Makvana, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer- Ward 1(2)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 2034/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt.Year :2012-13 Bhavesh Ramjeebhai Makvana The Ito, Ward-1(2)(1) At Pal, Tal-Lodhika Vs Vadodara. Dist. Rajkot. Pan : Bphpm 2808 B (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ar : Shri J.L. Bhatia, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/02/2045 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, AR
Section 144Section 147Section 234ASection 250Section 251Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

consulted his tax representative. It was further submitted that the assessee has a strong case on merits and should be provided a fair opportunity of being heard. 9. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 10. After hearing both sides

Jai Shanker Nadikuda, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-13(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 319/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Smt. S. Sandhya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Kumaran, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69ASection 80C

justice, remit the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) with a direction to decide the issue afresh, by giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, appeal

Shesharam Kumawat, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-8(2), Hyderabad

ITA 191/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: us :

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav. Sr.D.R
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

matter in all fairness be restored to the file 10 of A.O. with a direction to reframe the assessment after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to him. 9. Per contra, Ms. Reema Yadav, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (for short “ld.DR”) had though relied upon the orders ... decide the appeal. Needless to say, the CIT(A), in the course of the set-aside proceedings, shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Grounds of appeal Nos.2, 3 and 5 are allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our aforesaid observations

Broadridge Financial Solutions (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 1(1), Hyderabad

Accordingly, Ground No. 27 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 886/HYD/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 May 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Ms.Srilalitha Lakkakula, C.AFor Respondent: : Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

consider it just and proper to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. AO with a directions to verify, after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee, whether the amount of Rs. 21.97 crores towards amortisation of Right of Use assets was already suo motu disallowed