“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

Banti Devi, Kotputli vs. ITO War 5(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA 1341/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anand Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh choudhary, Addl. CIT a

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)Section 69A

section 69A of the Act is unjust, illogical and arbitrary and deserves to be quashed. 4. That the assessee must be provided proper opportunity of being heard to provide additional evidences in support of his contention that the cash amount Rs. 1819628/- deposited in the bank account is from genuine ... Cash flow statement 47 9. Bank Statement 48-50 He further submitted that the assessee may be provided one more opportunity of being heard by the Department and the case of the assessee may kindly be set aside to the AO for afresh adjudication but by providing adequate opportunity

Banti Devi, Kotputli vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA 1326/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Anand Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh choudhary, Addl. CIT a

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)Section 69A

Rupesh Mahendra Kankariya, Ahmednagar vs. ITO Wad-1, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 466/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri S S Viswanethra Raviassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath – Addl CIT

NFAC with a direction to condone the delay in filing of the appeal and adjudicate the issue afresh after 2 affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 4. In the result, the appeal filed

Chhoti Devi, Jalgaon vs. ITO Ward 2(1) Jalgaon, Jalgaon

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

ITA 446/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri S S Viswanethra Raviassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Vinay Kawadia (virtual)For Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath – Addl CIT

Section 69A

restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to decide the issue afresh after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, the appeal filed

Mr Jayadeep Bokil, Pune vs. ITO Ward-5(2), Pune

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

ITA 428/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri S S Viswanethra Raviassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Krishna Gujarathi (virtual)For Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath – Addl CIT

Section 144

valuation report to be procured by the assessee from the Registered Valuer. Needless to say, that the Assessing Officer shall provide due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, the appeal filed

Ramdas Pandharinath Kale(HUF), Pune vs. ITO, Ward-12(3), Pune

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

ITA 246/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.246/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ramdas Pandharinath Kale V The Income Tax Officer, (Huf), S Ward-12(3), Pune. Wagjholi, Kalewasti, Kasanand Road, Haveli, Pune – 412207. Pan: Aaqhr7916A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Abhay Avachat – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 27/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/03/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Delhi U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), Dated 19.10.2024 For The A.Y.2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “Each Ground Is Taken Without Prejudice To Each Other.

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

confirming the same 5. The learned CIT Appeals erred in dismissing assessee's appeal by rejecting delay condonation request without affording adequate opportunity of being heard. The appellate proceedings, thus, suffer from principles of natural justice and needs to be set aside. 6. The assessee prays before your honour ... afford and allow him an opportunity of being heard in interest of natural justice and on merits of the case as well, before the lower authorities or else to decide the matter if the honourable bench permits. 7. The assessee hereby requests for allowing any other relief as available under

Shrikrushna Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Va Krushipurak Seva Sanstha Murgud, Maharashtra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Kolhapur, Maharashtra

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

ITA 131/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri S S Viswanethra Raviassessment Year : 2022-23

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi (virtual)

NFAC with a direction to 2 condone the delay in filing of the appeal and adjudicate the issue afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 4. In the result, the appeal filed

Lions Club of Burdwan Welfare Charitable Trust, Burdwan vs. C.I.T., Exemption, Kolkata

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

ITA 2184/KOL/2024[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Mar 2025AY 2024-2025

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Cit (Exemption) Lions Club Of Budwan Welfare Income Tax Office, 10B, Charitable Trust, Tinkonia, Goods Shed Road, Middleton Road, Vs. Burdwan, West Bengal 713101 Kolkata-700071,West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatl9897Q Assessee By : Shri R. Patodia, Ar Revenue By : Shri Gaurav Kanaujia, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri R. Patodia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Kanaujia, DR

Section 12A(1)(ac)

Charitable Trust; A.Y. 2024-25 restore the issue to the file of the ld. CIT (E) for fresh adjudication after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 07. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court

Santhanalakshmi Babu Satishkumar, Chennai vs. ITO, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

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

ITA 3187/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY (Vice President), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Murali, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to furnish the details before the Assessing Officer as was submitted before the Tribunal. Thus, ground

Deltin Foundation, Goa vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Bangalore

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

ITA 199/BANG/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Ms. Ketki Mittal, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das, D.R

Section 12ASection 8Section 80G

Exemption) did not consider the submission sent through e-mail on 3.12.2024 and passed the order without giving any further opportunity of being heard. Being so, in the interest of justice and fair play, we remit the entire issue in dispute to the file of ld. CIT(Exemption) for fresh ... consideration and to decide the same in accordance with law. Needless to say, a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the ITA Nos.198 & 199/Bang/2025 M/s. Deltin Foundation, Goa Page 5 of 5 proceedings before

Deltin Foundation, Goa vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Bangalore

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

ITA 198/BANG/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Ms. Ketki Mittal, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das, D.R

Section 12ASection 8Section 80G

Aswathnarayanaiah Rathnamma Raamesh, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 188/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra B R., AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 234ASection 250Section 69Section 69ASection 80C

natural justice 2.1 The learned ITO, Ward 5(3)(2), Bangalore erred in passing the assessment order under section 144 without providing proper opportunity of being heard, without providing sufficient time to respond to show cause notice and without properly considering the replies, information and documents submitted during the assessment

Farooqia College of Pharmacy, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Mysore

In the result, accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2407/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, CA

Section 144Section 144ASection 148ASection 250(6)Section 69A

Since the impugned assessment year is related to demonetisation period, the AO will follow the CBDT instructions/Circulars strictly. Needless to say that reasonable opportunity of being heard be given to the assessee. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the proceedings for early disposal of the case and in case

Pratap Nagnaji Rajgor, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 865/MUM/2025[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

called ambiguous wording in the notice [has not] impaired or prejudiced the right of the assessee to a reasonable opportunity of being heard”. It went onto observe that for sustaining the plea of natural justice on the ground of absence of opportunity, "it has to be established that prejudice

Hitesh Suresh Jadhav, Kalher, Thane vs. ITO, Ward 1(5), Kalyan

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

ITA 771/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

Ld.CIT(A) shall consider the cause that lead to delay and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to assessee. 10 ITA No.771/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2017-18 Hitesh Suresh Jadhav 3. On merits, the Ld.AR submitted that the addition

Shree Cambay Swetamber Visha Shrimali Jain Samaj Sahayak Trust, Mumbai vs. Commmssioner of Incometax(Exemption), Mumbai

In the result appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 752/MUM/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 80G

Trust “A. GROUND I The Order dated 23.12.2024 has been passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai without granting any opportunity of being heard to the assessee and thus is in violation of the of the principles of natural justice, hence is liable to be set aside ... satisfied on above aspects, then registration shall be granted in Form 10AD. In other case the application will stand rejected after granting an opportunity of being heard (as per section 12AB(1)(b)(ii) of the Act). Further, according to Sub-section 4 and 5 of section 12AB inserted

Robert Jerome Lewis, Navi Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 699/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Ms. Shivali MhatreFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Addl. CIT

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 68

case, as doing so would prejudice the reassessment of the appeal. It is directed that the assessee be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the passing of the set-aside appellate order. Furthermore, if any new documents or evidence are sought to be filed, the same shall

M/S. Om Shanti Housing, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 20(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assesse stands allowed

ITA 672/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 143Section 44A

learned CIT (A) erred in passing order without giving adequate opportunity of being heard even though requested vide letter dated 18th April,2022 & 18th December 2024 which is contrary to provisions of law and natural justice 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Indu Bisht, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 645/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 271FSection 273B

levied if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for failure. 4. The Learned CIT Appeals erred in not granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee in spite of specific request made by the assessee vide its submissions dated 10th December 2024 ignoring the principles of natural ... file her return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. 3. The Learned CIT Appeals erred in levying penalty without providing enough opportunity of being heard to the assessee violating the principles of natural justice. 3 ITA No.644&645/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2016-17 Indu Bisht 4. The assessee craves

Indu Bisht, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 644/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 271FSection 273B

levied if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for failure. 4. The Learned CIT Appeals erred in not granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee in spite of specific request made by the assessee vide its submissions dated 10th December 2024 ignoring the principles of natural ... file her return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. 3. The Learned CIT Appeals erred in levying penalty without providing enough opportunity of being heard to the assessee violating the principles of natural justice. 4. The assessee craves to add, alter, amend and delete any of the above