“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

Shri Vijaypal Kishorilal Sharma, Pune vs. DCIT Circle-8, Pune

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

ITA 2561/PUN/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Rinkesh Gupta and Mrs. Daini ShindeFor Respondent: Shri Milind Debaje, JCIT (Virtual)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)

restore the issue in ITA No.2562/PUN/2024 to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the same on merit after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 11. In the result, both the appeals filed

Adesh Tulshiram Mhatre, District Raigad vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department

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

ITA 2385/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar GundherFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 206CSection 234ASection 270ASection 69Section 69C

should be condoned and the matter may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the issue after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, he submitted that an amount of Rs.3

Raina Vyapaar Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, CC-3(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 303/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Raina Vyapaar Private Limited Acit, Central Circle-3(2), 161/1, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Vs. Kolkata. Kolkata-700007. (Pan: Aabcr3482R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 250

being so, the issue in this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard subject to a cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) only payable to Legal Aid Services, 3rd floor of the Centenary Building

Bhattacharya Rubber Works (1964) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 8(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2084/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.2084/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bhattacharya Rubber Works (1964) Pvt. Ltd …….………………....Appellant 965, Jessore Road, Dum Dum, Kolkata-700055. [Pan: Aabcb8997M] Vs. Ito, Ward-8(1), Kolkata ……............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Deep Agarwal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Altaf Hossain, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 22, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.08.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company. As Per Information Available With Income Tax Department, The Assessee Had Sold An Immovable Property For Rs.5,70,13,000/- During The F.Y 2016-17 Relevant To A.Y. 2017-18. Based On The Information, The Assessing Officer Believed That Income Had Escaped Assessment & Therefore, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The By Issuing A Notice U/S 148 On 23.03.2021 With The Approval Of The Competent Authority. However, The Assessee Did Not File Return Of Income In Compliance To The Notice Issued U/S 148 Of The Act. Furthermore, A Questionnaire U/S 142(1) Dated 18.11.2021 Was Issued

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act during the year and pass a de novo assessment order after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In terms of the above, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back

Maco Corporation India (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-12(1), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1220/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Maco Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata 7A, Sukhsagar, 2/5, Sarat Bose Vs. Road, Minto Park, Kolkata-700020 (Pan: Aaccm8740L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rana, StaffFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 250

restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) who shall re- adjudicate the issue on merits after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee shall cooperate in the set aside proceeding and provide all the information as desired necessary for adjudication of this appeal before

Jet Tech Systems, Noida vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5(1)(3), Noida

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

ITA 5306/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 10ASection 143Section 14ASection 234ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

hereinafter, the ‘Act’). 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal in limine after affording 10 opportunities of being heard which were not availed by the assessee and the Ld. CIT(A) had no option except to decide the appeal. The relevant part ... other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR, drawing our attention to various paras of the impugned appellate order, submitted that reasonable opportunities of being heard were provided to the appellant assessee by the Ld. CIT(A). However, the appellant assessee preferred noncompliance. Hence, he prayed for upholding of orders

Aarti Sharma, India vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurugram

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

ITA 2473/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 89Section 90

condone the delay in filing the appeal and remit the matter back to ld. CIT (A) to decide afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard. We also direct assessee to make proper submissions and appear before the ld.CIT (A) on the date of hearing and cooperate with

Unitech Holdings Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 27(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 4411/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwaldy. Cit, M/S Unitech Holdings Ltd., Circle-27(1), Basement-6, Community Vs. New Delhi. Centre, Saket, Delhi-110017. Pan-Aaacu0237C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 249Section 249(4)(a)

decide the appeal of the assessee on merits as per law. The CIT(A) is also directed to provide reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 9. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court

Unitech Holdings Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 27(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 4410/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

loss and decide the same in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Needless to say, assessee be provided reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 17.04.2025. /- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Abdul Hakeem, Gulbarga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Gulbarga

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

ITA 31/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Gokul H.R., A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R

Section 250Section 253(5)

details/evidences /information/submission/record from the assessee based on the above directions and consider the claim made by the assessee. Needless to say, a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. Accordingly, with the above observations, the issue in dispute is remitted back to the file

Bhagirath Construcation Co., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 29/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 154

remit the entire issue in dispute to the file of AO for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Needless to say, reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to submit the reconciliation of the gross receipt as reflecting in 26AS

Santosh Naik, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Mandya

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

ITA 195/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Nagaraja KH, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)

order, the matter may be remanded back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. This request was made to ensure proper opportunity of being heard is provided in accordance with the principles of natural justice. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) did not raise ... aside and the matter is restored to the file of the AO to decide the issue afresh, after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in court on 22nd

Mrs. Hanumanthaiah Nagarathna, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1595/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri. Madhukeshwar Hegde, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 143(2)

fresh consideration. Considering the Paper Books filed by the assessee containing 130 pages, AO is directed to give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and assessee is directed to substantiate the case and in case of failure, no second leniency shall be granted to the assessee. Page

Palghar Memon Walfare Trust, Palghar vs. CIT (Exemptions), Pune

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1532/MUM/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shi Omkareshwar Chidarapalghar Memon Welfare Trust Vs Cit (Exemptions), Pune Danani Baungalow, Kacheri Road, Palghar-401 404 Pan : Aadtp2242G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Shah Respondent By : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT DR

view, the interest of justice would be met in case the lis between the parties is decided on merit after providing fair opportunity of being heard to both the parties. Therefore, after having heard both the parties and perusal of the materials on record as well as orders passed

Gyanyog Educational Trust, Palghar vs. CIT (Exemptions), Pune

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

ITA 1490/MUM/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT, D/R

Section 12A

registration granted under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should not be cancelled. The assessee was also given opportunity of being heard vide the said notice. The assessee was specifically informed that in the event of failure to comply by the due date, the application shall be liable ... requested to furnish the compliance till 11/12/2024. However, the assessee neither submitted explanation to the show cause notice till date nor availed the opportunity of being heard.” आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1490/Mum/2025 2 3. Before us the ld. Counsel for the assessee stated

Sanjiv Trust, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

ITA 1376/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vasanti B. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 111ASection 143(1)Section 234CSection 250

rate under Section 143(1) of the Act. It is submitted that the adjustment has been made without affording to the appellant any opportunity of being heard and the same is in gross violation of principles of natural justice as well as the provisions of Section

Sanjiv Trust, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

ITA 1375/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vasanti B. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 111ASection 143(1)Section 234CSection 250

Shree Yadvesh Transport Co . Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 13(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6877/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

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

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32

assessee arises out of order dated 09/10/2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi, for assessment year 2016-17 on following grounds of appeal:- “1. Fair Opportunity of being heard is not given: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellant submits that they were prevented ... control to reply to the various notices issued and upload responses for the submission during the appeal proceedings. The Appellant submits that an opportunity of being heard be given as a matter of natural justice. 2. Penalty of Rs. 2,99,243/- u/s 271(1)(c) levied

Suresh Bhagwandas Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 23(1)(6), Mumbai

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

ITA 6292/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailsuresh Bhagwandas Mehta, B-4 Mehta House, Jvpd Scheme, Vl Mehta Road, Vile Parle West Mumbai – 400049 ............... Appellant Pan : Aadpm8459J

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed, CAFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 254Section 54B

Appeals), NFAC, erred in passing an order u/s 250 confirming the additions made by the Learned Assessing Officer without giving an adequate opportunity of being heard. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, erred in not granting the exemption of section 54B without appreciating that, the agricultural land

Vijayam Memorial Trust, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 5596/MUM/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2025

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

Section 10Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 14ASection 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iv)

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 6 ITA No.5596/Mum/2024; A.Y. 2025-26 Vijayam Memorial Trust otherwise