“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

Fo Kuang Shan Calcutta Buddhist Centre, Kolkata vs. CIT (Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 2647/KOL/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 May 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2647/Kol/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : Na) Fo Kuang Shan Calcutta Vs Cit(Exemption), Kolkata Buddhist Centre, 8 New Tangra Road, Kolkata Pan No. :Aaatf 1639 E (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ashish Rustagi, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/05/2025

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Rustagi, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.N.Barnwal, CIT-DR

Section 12A(1)(ac)

justice, we restore the issues to the file of Id. CIT(E) for readjudicating the issues afresh after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. 3 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court

M/S. Dhankamal Properties Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2642/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2642/Kol/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Dhankamal Properties Pvt. Ltd Vs Ito, Ward-1(1), Kolkata 5, Narayan Prasad Babu Lane, Burrabazar, Kolkata Pan No. :Aaecd 1066 E (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Nicholas Murmu, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.10.2024, Passed By The Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1070004334(1), For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Nicholas Murmu, Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. Ld. Sr. Dr Supported The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A) & The Ld. Ao. It Was The Submission That Restoring The Matter To The File Of Cit(A) Would Be, In Fact, Giving The Assessee A Second Round Which Should Not Be Granted. 4. A Perusal Of The Impugned Order Passed By The Id. Cit(A) At Para 5.2, Shows That The Assessee Has Not Cooperated In The Appellate Proceedings However, In The Interest Of Justice, We Restore The Issues To The File Of Id. Cit(A) For Readjudicating The Issues Afresh After Granting The Assessee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Nicholas Murmu, Sr. DR

justice, we restore the issues to the file of Id. CIT(A) for readjudicating the issues afresh after granting the assessee 2 adequate opportunity of being heard, subject to a payment of cost of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) by the assessee to the Legal Aid Services, 3rd Floor

M/S. Bengal Shristi Infrastructure Development Ltd., Durgapur vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 2, Durgapur

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

ITA 2035/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2035/Kol/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) M/S Bengal Shristi Infrastructure Vs Acit, Circle-2, Durgapur Development Limited, Bug-5, Upper Ground Floor, City Centre, Durgapur-713216 Pan No. :Aabcb 8990 N (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.04.2024, Passed By The Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1052357794(1), For The Assessment Year 2011-2012. 2. Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. At The Outset, On Perusal Of The Appeal Record, We Find That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Filed Belatedly By 464 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application Stating Sufficient Reasons For Condonation Of Delay, Which In Our Opinion, Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Accordingly, The Delay Of 464 Days In Filing The Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Heard On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.N.Barnwal, CIT-DR

submission of the ld. AR that the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is an ex-parte order without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It was also submitted that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to represent its case before ... justice, we restore the issues to the file of Id. CIT(A) for readjudicating the issues afresh after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard, subject to a payment of cost of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) by the assessee to the Legal Aid Services, 3rd Floor

Kalyan, V. Nagar, Purulia vs. It(Exemptions), 10B, Middleton Row (6Th Floor)

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

ITA 1980/KOL/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 May 2025

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(ii)Section 80G(5)(vi)

this opinion that ld. CIT (Exemption) to reconsider the application of the assessee for registration in accordance with law after affording necessary opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed in terms of the above. 5. In the result, the appeal filed ... reconsider the application of the assessee for permanent registration filed u/s 12AB of the Act and in accordance with law after giving necessary opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Miscellaneous Application filed against the order of the Tribunal was rejected vide order dated 22.07.2022. ix) The assessee filed

Vijay Deswal, Rohtak vs. ITO, Ward 5, Rohtak

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

ITA 767/DEL/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2009-10 Vijay Deswal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, H.No. 160/22, Vikas Nagar, Ward-5, Rohtak Rohtak, Haryana-124001 (Pan: Ajbpd7321H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Naveen Gupta, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 05.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05.05.2025 Order

For Appellant: Sh. Naveen Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr. DR

Officer with the directions to consider the additional evidences of the assessee and then decide the issue in dispute afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, in accordance with law. Ld. DR did not raise any objection to the aforesaid contention. 4. In view ... dispute is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the directions to consider the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, in accordance with law. Assessee is also directed through Ld. AR to fully cooperate with the Assessing Officer during the proceedings

Sunil Gandhi HUF, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 28(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 743/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2013-14 Sunil Gandhi Huf, Vs. Ito, Ward-28(5), 93, Pocket-2, Jasola, Civic Centre, New Delhi – 110 025 New Delhi (Pan: Aaphs9744A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Ms. Deepali Sehgal, Adv. & Sh. Dushyant Choudhary, Ca Respondent By : Shri Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 05.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05.05.2025 Order

For Appellant: Ms. Deepali Sehgal, Adv. & Sh. DushyantFor Respondent: Shri Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr. DR

issues in dispute to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with the directions to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to fully cooperate with the Ld. CIT(A) during the proceedings. 4. In the result, the Assessee

Hukam Singh, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Gurgaon

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

ITA 739/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2017-18 Hukam Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Village Silokhara, Ward 1(4), Gurgaon, Haryana Haryana (Pan: Aiepc3439K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 05.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05.05.2025 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147

back the issues in dispute to the file of the Assessing Officer with the directions to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assesee. Assessee is also directed to fully cooperate with the Assessing Officer during the proceedings before him. 4. In the result

Prince Jan Kalyan Samiti, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Faridabad

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 5839/DEL/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2025

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Ms. Sweety Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

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

restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide the issues afresh after allowing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. The ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide the issues afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard

Prince Jan Kalyan Samiti, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Faridabad

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 5838/DEL/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2025

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Ms. Sweety Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

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

Dhanshree Softech Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Delhi

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

ITA 5742/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumara.Yr. : 2018-19 Dhanshree Softech Private Vs. Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward 7(1), 59, Top Floor, Vijay Block, Delhi Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110 092 (Pan: Aaccd9596M) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Mukul Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 144B

remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, after giving 2 | P a g e adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the appeal on merits of the case, for which Ld. DR has no objection. 4. We have heard both ... file of the Ld. CIT(A), with the directions to decide the same afresh on merits of the case, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. 5. In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

Primary Plus Media Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 20(1), Cr Building Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 5715/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri R.S.Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Primary Plus Media [A.Y 2016-17] to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide the issues afresh after allowing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. The ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide the issues afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being

Hamd Foods Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

In the result, both the Assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5617/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) in both the appeals for fresh adjudication, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the appeals on merits of the case, for which Ld. DR has no objection. 4. We have heard ... file of the Ld. CIT(A), with the directions to decide the same afresh on merits of the case, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. 5. In the result, both the Assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

Hamd Foods Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

In the result, both the Assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5616/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Access India Impex Centre Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 1(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 2462/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumara.Yr. : 2012-13 Access India Impex Centre Pvt Vs. Ito, Ward 1(3), Ltd., C.R. Building, 602, Naurang House, New Delhi 21, Kasturba Marg, New Delhi – 110 001 (Pan: Aadca4236A) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Rasik Makkar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, after considering the reply, documents and evidences submitted by the assessee by providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, for which Ld. DR has no objection. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In view ... issues are remitted back to the file of the AO with the directions to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and also consider the reply etc. submitted by the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. 6. In the result, the Assessee

The Secondary Teachers Co-Operative Credit Society Limtied, Dharwad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Hubli

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

ITA 2383/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Atul Alur, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 57(2)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

aside the impugned order and restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 10.3 However, I also direct the assessee to make necessary compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) and not to seek

Shikshak Bharati, Mumbai vs. CIT(Exemption), Mumbai

In the result, appeal stands allowed for statistical

ITA 731/MUM/2025[N.A]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2025

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Sujay Waikul, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manish Sareen (CIT DR)

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

fairplay. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to him for de novo adjudication while applying the principles of natural justice after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. In the result, appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 05.05.2025. Sd/- AMIT

Shree Hanuman Seva Mandal, Thane vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

In the result, appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 253/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das (CIT DR)

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

indifference that is unacceptable. The principles of natural justice operate both ways, while the Revenue authorities are required to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard, the taxpayer is equally obligated to co- operate with the authorities and utilize the opportunities extended. In the present case, despite receiving adequate opportunities ... matter should be remanded back to him for de novo adjudication by him while applying the principles of natural justice after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. P a g e | 6 A.Y. 2022-23 Shree Hanuman Seva Mandal 6.3 Moreover, considering assessee’s non-compliant

Renisha Impex Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Nfau

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

ITA 1576/MUM/2025[2016-2017]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai05 May 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT D/R

file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal on merits of the case after affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court

Royal Palms (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 13(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1564/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, V.P. & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Respondent: Shri Govindrao J. Ninawe (Sr. DR)

Section 133BSection 201(1)

basic grievance of the assessee is against dismissal of its appeal by learned First Appellate Authority without affording adequate opportunity of being heard. 3. We have heard parties and perused the materials on record. 4. Briefly the facts are, the assessee is a resident corporate entity. In course of enquiry ... appeals to the file of learned First Appellate Authority for de-novo adjudication. Needless to say, the assessee must be provided fair opportunity of being heard before deciding the issues. We further direct the assessee to respond to the notice of hearing to be issued by learned First Appellate Authority

Royal Palms (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 13(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1563/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, V.P. & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Respondent: Shri Govindrao J. Ninawe (Sr. DR)

Section 133BSection 201(1)