← 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

R1618 Varadharajapuram Pacs, Tiruchirappalli vs. ITO, Ward-2, Tiruchirappalli

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

ITA 588/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.588/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 R 1618 Varadharajapuram Primary Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Agri. Co-Op. Society, 6/69A, Ward 2, Thirunarayanapuram, Tiruchirapalli. Tiruchirapalli 621 203. [Pan:Aabar2403E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasi Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Raised 7 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A)

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

undertakes that the assessee shall appear and furnish complete details before the Assessing Officer without fail if the Tribunal afford an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. The ld. DR Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT opposed the same and drew our attention to para

M/S. India Garage, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-7(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 451/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.451/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 M/S. India Garage, Deputy Commissioner Of Income New No.199, Old No.143, Tax, Gove Building, Anna Road, Non-Corp Circle-7(1), Chennai-600 002. Chennai. [Pan: Aaafi0929E]

For Appellant: Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gowthami Manivasagam, JCIT

appeal. 3.0 At the outset, Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard. Attention was invited to para 3 of appellate order indicating that opportunities were provided to the assessee which were not complied ... Counsel submitted that even the Ld.AO has not given any opportunity of being heard to the assessee before making the impugned addition. It was requested that one last opportunity be provided to present its case before the Lower Authorities. The Ld.AR gave personal assurance that full compliance will be made

Munireddy Prakashreddy, Krishnagiri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Hosur

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

ITA 450/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.450/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2012-13 Munireddy Prakashreddy, Income Tax Officer, No.1/16, Madivalam, Nallur Post, Ward-1, Hosur, Krishnagiri Dist. Hosur. Tamil Nadu-635 103, [Pan: Afbpp3725K] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.Akash, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Gowthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri G.Akash, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gowthami Manivasagam, JCIT

order of Ld.CIT(A) and direct him to readjudicate the appeal after admitting the evidences produced before him. He shall be providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass a speaking order. He may obtain remand report from the Ld.AO if deemed Page - 2 - of 3 necessary

Rajkanwar Kataria, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-10(5), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 441/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.441/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Mrs.Rajkanwar Kataria, Income Tax Officer, Tower No.4, Flat No.G-03, No.4,5,6 Non-Corporate Ward-10(5), North Town Estate, Binny Mills, Chennai. Stephenson Road, Jamlaia, Chennai-600 012. [Pan: Aalpk5671N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri M.Murugaboopathy, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Gowthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri M.Murugaboopathy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gowthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 234ASection 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

outset, Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard. Attention was invited to para 4 of appellate order indicating that opportunities were provided to the assessee which were not complied. The Ld. Counsel submitted that even ... Ld.AO has not given any opportunity of being heard to the assessee before making the impugned addition and that the information was obtained and used without assessee’s knowledge. It was requested that one last opportunity be provided to present its case Page - 2 - of 4 before the Lower Authorities

V. Venkataraman HUF, Virudhunagar vs. DCIT, Ncc-2, Madurai

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

ITA 431/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.431/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2017-18 V.Venkataraman Huf Deputy Commissioner Of Income Represented By V. Kalavathy, Tax, W/O.Late V.Venkataraman, Non-Corporate Circle-2, No.25, Thillai Nagar, Sattur, Madurai. Virudhunagar Dist, Tamil Nadu-626 203. [Pan: Aachv5604B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri S.Sundar Raman, Ca. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Gowthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri S.Sundar Raman, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Gowthami Manivasagam, JCIT

agricultural income. At the outset, Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard. Attention was invited to para 4 of appellate order indicating that three opportunities were provided to the assessee. The Ld. Counsel attributed ... Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld.First Appellate Authority and direct him to adjudicate the matter de novo after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He may obtain remand remand report from Page - 3 - of 4 the Ld.AO if deemed necessary. The assessee shall comply

Thangaraj Navaneethakrishnan, Madurai vs. ITO, Ncw-2(5), Madurai

In the result, the appeals of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 13/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.13/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri C.Karthick, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Samantha Mullamudi, Addl.CIT
Section 143(2)Section 147

also seen that the Ld.AO deprived the assessee with a reasonable time to file its responses. Principles of natural justice postulate that reasonable opportunity of being heard is sina qua non for any judicial proceedings. The same has been violated. Be that ... view that the assessee has not been afforded adequate opportunities of being heard. We are of the view that ends of justice Page - 2 - of 4 would be met if the assessee is given one last opportunity to present its case and file supporting evidences before the Ld.AO. Accordingly

Vinayaga Educational Trust, Namakkal vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Salem

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

ITA 3007/CHNY/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3007/Chny/2024 Assessment Years: 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri.V.Meenakshi Sundar, C.AFor Respondent: Smt.Samantha Mullamudi, Addl.CIT
Section 11Section 119(2)(b)

direct him to adjudicate de novo all the grounds of appeal contested by the assessee before him by giving due opportunity of being heard and through a speaking order. The assessee shall comply with all statutory notices Page - 2 - of 3 issued

Shri. Sannappa Ramappa, Davangere vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Davangere

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

ITA 50/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Ms. Richa Bakiwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

learned NFAC passed the order against the principles of natural justice i.e. the order was passed in haste III without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Appellant and thus, is liable to be quashed. The learned NFAC, in its capacity as a quasi-judicial authority, erred

Naga Simhadri Charities, Chitradurga vs. CIT(Exemptions), Bangalore

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

ITA 339/BANG/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Varun Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri. E. Shridhar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

remitting the issue back to the learned CIT(E) for fresh consideration and the learned CIT(E) is directed to give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee is directed to submit the requisite documents for substantiating its case and is further directed not to seek

Naga Simhadri Charities, Chitradurga vs. CIT, (Exemptions), Bangalore

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

ITA 338/BANG/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Varun Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri. E. Shridhar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

remitting the issue back to the learned CIT(E) for fresh consideration and the learned CIT(E) is directed to give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee is directed to submit the requisite documents for substantiating its case and is further directed not to seek

Veda Management Consultancy Services, Bangalore vs. ITO, Ward-4(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 144/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soudararajan Kassessment Year : 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri. Sudharshan Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143(1)Section 155(14)

interest of justice, we remitting the issue back to the file of jurisdictional AO. The jurisdictional AO is directed to give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and allow TDS credit as per law. Assessee is directed provide necessary documents to substantiate its case and not seek unnecessary

Mayur Prakash Heroor, Mumbai vs. Erstwhile- DCIT Circle 29(2), Mumbai Now-DCIT Circle (41)(2)(1), Kautilya Bhawan, Mumbai

ITA 489/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shubham GoyalFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 144Section 250

Furthermore, the honorable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), (Addl/JCIT(A)-12), erred in confirming the same without giving the sufficient and further opportunity of being heard.” 3. We have heard the rival submission and have perused the material on record. 4. The relevant facts in brief are that ... return of income for the Financial Years 2015-2016 and 2017-2018. It is clarified that the Assessee shall be granted reasonable opportunity of being heard. In terms of aforesaid, Ground No.1 raised by the Assessee is allowed. 7. In result, the appeal preferred by the Assessee is treated

M/S. Ritz Beauty, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 23(3)(6), Mumbai

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

ITA 327/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. D/R

file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal on merits after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 30th April

Ratnaravi Metal Impex, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Ofiicer 19(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 268/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble1.T.A. No. 268/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. D/R
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 271ASection 271FSection 272ASection 69A

with a direction to decide the appeal on merits of the case after affording a 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 on 30 April, 2025 at Mumbai

The Anjumane Taiyebi, Mumbai vs. CIT Exemption, Mumbai

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

ITA 1825/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2022-23 The Anjumanetaiyebi Cit Exemption Husaini Masjid Bldg 1St Floor Room No. 601 6Thflr, 66-68 Husainiyah Ma, Mandvi Post Vs. Camballahill,Mtnl Building, Office, Mumbai- 400013 Pedder Road, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-400013 Pan No. Aaata 000 7 H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Sakina Murtuza ImaniFor Respondent: Mr. Satya Pal Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 80GSection 80G(5)

section code inadvertently while filing the application for final registration in Form 10AB. Further, we notice that the assessee did not have the opportunity of being heard before CIT(E) due to incorrect course of action advised, and that otherwise the assessee might have explained the facts before

Bhagwan Bhairu Badre, Mumbai vs. Ward 42(1)(1), Mumbai, Kautilya Bhavan

ITA 1692/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: the City Civil Court, which passed its order on 27.12.2011 2.

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin SolankiFor Respondent: Shri Akhatar Hussain Ansari
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 50C

dated 09/01/2025, passed by the learned CIT(A) with the directions to adjudicate the appeal afresh as per law after granting Assessee an opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. The Assessee had also placed on record copy of orders passed by various courts in support of the contention that

Deepak Ramesh Shah, Mumbai vs. The Dcti, Central Circle-5(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1438/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi & Ms. Adnya Bhandari, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. D/R
Section 144

issues to the file of the AO. The AO is directed to decide the issues afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee is directed to comply with the directions of the AO and furnish the necessary details along with supporting

H Karmali and Co, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Mumbai

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

ITA 1254/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: 16.04.2025
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 234ASection 250Section 271ASection 69C

circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in passing an order without giving an adequate opportunity of being heard and by not observing the principles of natural justice The Ld. AO erred in making an addition of business expenses to the tune ... interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AO erred in passing assessment order without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of Mandap Decorations. The assessee

Uttari Bharat Sabha, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (E)-2(4), Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

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

ITA 1185/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 119Section 12ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

appeal back to the Ld.CIT(A) to consider the deduction claimed by the assessee in accordance with law. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to assessee in accordance with law. 4 ITA No.1185/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2017-18 Uttari Bharat Sabha Accordingly, the grounds raised

Milagro Ceremica Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle 15(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1033/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Parth Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 156

adjudication of the grounds taken by the first appellate stage by passing a speaking order. Needless to say, that assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard and make his submissions to substantiate the claims. We also direct the assessee to be diligent in attending the hearing proceedings