← 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

Ivl Dhunseri Petrochem Industries Private Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1712/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1712/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-2021) Ivl Dhunseri Petrochem Vs Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata Industries Pvt. Ltd. Dhunseri House, 4A Woodburn Park, L.R.Sarani, West Bengal-700020 Pan No. :Aafcd 5214 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Ca & Vidhi Ladia, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Pradip Kumar Mondal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 19/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Rajesh Kumar, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26/07/2024, Passed By The Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre U/S.143(3) R.W.S.144C(13) R.W.S.144B Of The Act, For The Assessment Year 2020-2021 On The Following Grounds :- 1.(A) For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Tpo Erred In Making A Downward Adjustment Of Rs.24,72,79,392/- In Respect Of The Transfer Value Of Power By The Captive Power Plant At Haldia, West Bengal. (B) For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Methodology Followed By The Assessee To Benchmark The Arm'S Length Value Of The Power Transferred By The Eligible Unit To The Non-Eligible Unit Fulfilled The Internal Cup Parameters & In That View Of The Matter The Transfer Pricing Adjustment Made By The Tpo Was Impermissible On The Given Facts & In Law. (C) For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Manner In Which The Drp/Tpo Has Benchmarked

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, CA and VidhiFor Respondent: Pradip Kumar Mondal, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 270ASection 80ISection 92C

file of AO with a direction to examine the same and allow the credits after being necessary verification after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus, ground No.4 & 5 are allowed for statistical purposes. 19. Ground No.6 is general in nature. The same does not require

Nataraj Shanmugavel, Dindigul vs. DCIT, Ward-1, Dindigul

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

ITA 329/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. A.G. SathyanarayananFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

justice, we set aside the impugned order and remit back the matter to the file of AO for denovo adjudication, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. All the legal issues in this appeal are kept open. 3 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee

Shri. Mahaveer Jain Education Society English Medium School, Gadag vs. CIT, Exemptions, Bangalore

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

ITA 54/BANG/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2024-25

For Appellant: Shri Tharun Kothari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M Harischandra Naik, CIT (DR)
Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80Section 80G

file of the learned CIT(E) to examine the application afresh in accordance with law, after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and without being influenced solely by the ground of fee receipts. The CIT(E) shall evaluate whether the donations, if any, are applied towards charitable

S.S.Shettar Foundation, Bangalore vs. CIT (Exemptions), Bangalore

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

ITA 28/BANG/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2024-25

For Appellant: Shri Madhukeshwar Hegde, CAFor Respondent: Shri E-Shridhar, CIT (DR)
Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80G

file of the learned CIT(E) to examine the application afresh in accordance with law, after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and without being influenced solely by the ground of fee receipts. The ld. CIT(E) shall evaluate whether the donations, if any, are applied towards

Sri Anitha Education Society, Udupi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Bangalore

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

ITA 21/BANG/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2024-25

For Appellant: Shri Madhukeshwar Hegde, C.AFor Respondent: Shri E Shridhar, CIT (DR)
Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80Section 80G

file of the learned CIT(E) to examine the application afresh in accordance with law, after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and without being influenced solely by the ground of fee receipts. The ld. CIT(E) shall evaluate whether the donations, if any, are applied towards

Mrs. Hodike Hosahalli Venkate Gowda Sowmya, Maddur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Mandya

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

ITA 2584/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaiana Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing counsel for revenue
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

entire issues involved in the present appeal to the file of AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to produce all the necessary documents/evidences/information in support of her claim and shall not seek unnecessary

Jitendra Virendra Bagrecha, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 1140/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(2)Section 44ASection 45Section 54Section 69A

Jitendra Virendra Bagrecha necessary verification and to consider the claim of the assessee in accordance with law. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. Accordingly the grounds raised by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purpose. In the result the appeal

Mahabhairav Auto LLP, Tezpur vs. DCIT/ACIT Cir-1, Guwahati

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

ITA 213/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati23 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Where The Assessee Could Not Succeed Mainly On The Ground That There Was A Delay Of 144 Days In Filing Of The First Appeal, Which Was Not

Section 250

this matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Needless to say, the Ld. CIT(A) would give adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. I.T.A. No. 213/GTY/2024 Mahabhairav Auto LLP 4. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-Imphal, Imphal vs. Shri Laishram Mani Singh, Imphal

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

ITA 31/GTY/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati23 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: The Ld. Ao. It Is Seen That The Ld. Cit(A) Had Access To More

Section 132Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

Mani Singh order is set aside and this matter is remanded to the file of Ld. AO for fresh proceedings after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Ld. AO is directed to bring out the facts and the position of law clearly before either levying

Ranee Narah, Guwahati vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Guwahati

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

ITA 84/GTY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati23 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 68Section 69

hereby set aside and the Ld. AO is directed to frame the assessment de novo after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall be at liberty to raise all legal contentions before the Ld. AO and reconcile the item-wise discrepancy and thereafter

Rakesh Kumar, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bhilai, Durg

ITA 140/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 140/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(3)Section 250Section 69A

remanded back to Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. 13. Needless to say, the assessee shall be afforded with reasonable opportunity of being heard in the set aside appellate proceedings. 14. In result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 140/RPR/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes. 11 Rakesh

M/S Sarda Energy Ltd., Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur

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

ITA 134/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.134/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Sarda Energy Limited 73-A, Central Avenue Road, Nagpur (Mh)-440 018 Pan: Aalcs8505J ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Naya Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Adarsh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, CIT-DR

matter came up before the ITAT, it had failed to address the infirmity regarding the fact that the assessee was not afforded proper opportunity of being heard and the matter was dismissed ex-parte by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC which amounted to violation of principles of natural justice ... part of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In light of such decision, the petitioner ought to have been granted an opportunity of being heard which, partakes the characteristic of the fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 11. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay

Navratan Jewellers, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Raipur

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of over aforesaid observations

ITA 127/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 127/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri B. Subramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 147Section 250Section 251(1)(a)

assessment and direct the A.O. to make a fresh assessment in accordance with the provisions of this Act, after giving the appellant an opportunity of being heard." This provision empowers the Commissioner (Appeals) to remand the case back to the A.O. for a fresh assessment if the appeal involves ... warrants a fresh assessment, taking into consideration the grounds raised during the appellate proceedings, the contentions supported by documents, and ensuring reasonable opportunities of being heard are provided to the appellant. Therefore, in accordance with the proviso to Section 251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, the assessment order

Surya Electromech Privet Limited, Gandhidham vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Gandhidham

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

ITA 262/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.262/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) Income Tax Officer, Suryaelectromech Private Limited, Vs. Ward 2, Plot No.33, Gidc, Sector No.8, Gandhidham Gujrat Gandhidham 370201 370201

For Appellant: ShriChetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Pungalia, Ld.CIT (DR)
Section 144Section 250

assessee could not appear before the learned CIT(A). 5. We are of the view that the assessee did not have proper opportunity of being heard before CIT(A) and therefore, ex-parte order of Ld.CIT(A) dismissing the appeal of the assessee has to be set aside

Shardha Devi, Patna vs. Income Tax Officer, Patna

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

ITA 411/PAT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 Apr 2025AY 2014-15
Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 45Section 48

impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A) requires to be annulled. 4. For that the appellant was not afforded fit and proper opportunity of being heard as the order of the Ld. CIT(A) has no mention of the detailed written submission and supporting documents furnished by the appellant ... this matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Needless to say, the Ld. CIT(A) would give adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

Bhartish Kumar, Patna vs. ACIT Central Circle 1, Patna

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

ITA 306/PAT/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: the First Appellate Authority, the status of the decision is as under:

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69A

matters are remanded back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh assessment. Needless to say, the Ld. AO would give adequate opportunity of being heard and the assessee would do well to present the books of accounts, etc and his arguments clearly before

Bhartish Kumar, Patna vs. ACIT Central Circle 1, Patna

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

ITA 305/PAT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: the First Appellate Authority, the status of the decision is as under:

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69A

matters are remanded back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh assessment. Needless to say, the Ld. AO would give adequate opportunity of being heard and the assessee would do well to present the books of accounts, etc and his arguments clearly before

Bhartish Kumar, Patna vs. ACIT Central Circle 1, Patna

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

ITA 304/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the First Appellate Authority, the status of the decision is as under:

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69A

matters are remanded back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh assessment. Needless to say, the Ld. AO would give adequate opportunity of being heard and the assessee would do well to present the books of accounts, etc and his arguments clearly before

Liju Jose, Kottayam vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5 Kottayam, Kottayam

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

ITA 175/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.Prasanth Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 143(3)Section 69

remanded to the file of the CIT(A), with a direction to dispose of the appeal de novo on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 3 ITA No.175/Coch/2025. Sri.Liju Jose. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Mamraji Nemchand Pareek, Kerala vs. Non Corp ITO Ward 1 (3), Cochin

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

ITA 715/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Respondent: Shri Saurav Rohatgi, CA
Section 143(3)Section 69B

decide the same afresh after receiving the documents to be filed by the assessee. It is needless to say that an opportunity of being heard may also be granted to the assessee before deciding the appeal by one way or other. 7. In the result, the appeal filed