“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

Kabali Sivakumar, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-9(4), Chennai

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

ITA 306/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K., Vice- & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 306/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kabali Sivakumar, Income Tax Officer, 24, Vanniyar Street, Triplicane, Vs. Non Corporate Ward -9(4), Chennai 600 005. Chennai. [Pan: Dmvps-6280-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasi Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 19.03.2025 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

could not respond to the hearing notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) and prayed that the assessee may be afforded one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee to substantiate his case before the ld. CIT(A). 8. The ld. DR Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT opposed ... proper to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh by affording one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee after considering the written submissions/ documentary evidence as may be filed by the assessee to substantiate his claim. Thus, the grounds

Revathikumar Sudha, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncw-19(1), Chennai

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 305/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K., Vice- & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 304 & 305/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Revathikumar Sudha, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 29, 3Rd Main Road, Thilaiganga Income Tax, Nagar, Chennai 600 061. Non Corporate Ward –19(1), Chennai. [Pan: Aztps-8926-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasi Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 19.03.2025 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Both Dated 12.12.2024 Pertains To The Assessment Year 2015-16 Towards Quantum Addition As Well As Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194ISection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 56

copy of the same are placed on record. Thus, the ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that the assessee may be afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee to substantiate his case before the Assessing Officer. 7. The ld. DR Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT fairly conceded that ... deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee after considering the submissions/ documentary evidences, if any, as may be filed by the assessee to substantiate his claim. 9. With

Revathikumar Sudha, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncw-19(1, Chennai

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 304/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194ISection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 56

Kunguman Ganeshan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-11(3), Chennai

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

ITA 295/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K., Vice- & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 295/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kunguman Ganeshan, Income Tax Officer, 22/59, Mohammed Hussain Street, Vs. Non Corporate Ward -11(3), Royapettah S.O., Royapettah, Chennai 600 006. Chennai 600 014. [Pan: Bgqpg-5503-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri J. Saravanan, Advocate ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri A. Sasi Kumar, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing 18.03.2025 : घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 06.11.2024 & Pertains To Assessment Year 2017-18 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 250Section 69A

deem it proper to remit the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh by affording one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee to consider his submissions as may be filed and pass order in accordance with law keeping in mind the above

R. Thanabalan, Tuticorin vs. ITO, Ward-5, Thoothukudi

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

ITA 256/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K., Vice- & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 256/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 R. Thanabalan, Income Tax Officer, 2F/1575, P & T Colony, Vs. Ward -5, Tuticorin 628 008. Tuticorin 628 001. [Pan: Aabpt-4814-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasi Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 18.03.2025 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 19.11.2024 & Pertains To Assessment Year 2013-14 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 44A

examine the details filed by the assessee and decide the issue fresh in accordance with law by affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to furnish complete details before the ld. CIT(A) for verification. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee

E Ashwath Narayan, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1920/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sri S. Satish, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 250Section 69A

approval of specified authority, with respect to the information which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; (b) provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, 23[***] by serving upon him a notice to show cause within such time, as may be specified in the notice ... above provision of the section 148A(b) of the Act, the AO shall, before issuing any notice under section 148, provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, by serving upon him a notice to show cause within such time, as may be specified in the notice, being

Kailash Krishnakumar Bothare, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-16(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the appellant is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 846/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Kailash Krishnakumar Bothare Ito Ward Shop No. 4, Palm Springs Chs 16(2)(1) Ltd., Military Road, Marol Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Andheri East M.K. Road Mumbai-400 059. Mumbai-40 0020 Pan : Ahgpb9022L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Hemanshu JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Jay Thakkar

Section 56(2)(x)

circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the order ex-parte, without allowing adequate opportunity of being heard and without issuing the notice of hearing to the appellant; 2. On and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming

Harish Dharma Rathod (Represented Through Legal Heir Pushpa H. Rathod), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

The appeal of the appellant is allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 817/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Harish Dharma Rathod Ito Ward (Represented Through Legal 42(2)(3) Heir Pushpa H. Rathod) Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Room No. 37, Bmc Chowl M.K. Road 150 Suklaji Street, Behind New Marine Nishant Cinema, Mumbai Lines, Mumbai 400 008. 400 020. Pan : Abkpr9312B Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Shri Sachin Kumar

Section 250

facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has passed the order u/s 250 without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard and thus violating the principles of “audi alteram partem”. 3. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... After perusal of the orders of the lower authorities and hearing both sides, it is decided that the appellant should be given proper opportunity to be heard and his case should be disposed of on merits. As the appellant’s father passed away and the reason for delay is minimal

Krantidevta Savitribai Phule Shikshan Sanstha, Kalyan vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-(Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 585/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhankrantidevta Savitribai Phule Cit(Exemptions), Shikshan Sansthan R. No. 322, 3Rd Floor, Income C/O- Himanshu Gandhi, 16Th Floor, D Vs. Tax Office, Pmt Building, Wing, Trade World Tower, Kamala Shankar Seth Road, Pune, Mill Compound, Lower Parel, Maharashtra-411 037 Mumbai- 400 013 Pan: Aactk4976F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10Section 12A

application of the trust under section 12AB for registration under Section 10(23C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without providing fair opportunity of being heard as the notices were issued on incorrect email id. Krantidevta Savitribai Phule Shikshan Sansthan 3. Ground 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter ... that the impugned order passed by Ld CIT(E) suffers from miscarriage of justice as the application has been rejected without giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee and no notices were issued by the Ld. CIT(E) for compliance to the assessee. Ld. AR stated that

Late Shanti Mohta, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Raipur

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

ITA 71/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.71/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Late Shanti Mohta 15/391, Jawahar Nagar, Ravigram S.O Chhattisgarh- 492 001 Pan: Aldpm6184F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 5

delivery report to these email ids, the said notices have been duly served/ delivered upon the appellant. Despite given repeated opportunities of being heard, there has 6 Late Shanti Mohta Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur been no compliance to these notices. It is apparent that the appellant ... 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

Kalyan Gas Agency, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur

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

ITA 62/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.62/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Kalyan Gas Agency 1, New Bus Stand, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aagfk4563Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 5

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

Geeta Patel, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Raipur

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

ITA 125/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.125/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Geeta Patel House No.B-13, Sector-5, Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aeqpp8409Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Office, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

Bardoli Vibhag Gram Vikas Credit Society, Surat vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1180/SRT/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsl.

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Mitish Kumar ModiFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, CIT-D.R

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

item (B) of sub-clause (vi) of sub-section (1) of section 12A, rejecting such application, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard; (c) where the application is made under item (A) of sub-clause (vi) of the said clause or the application is made under sub-clause