“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

Sumaiya Enterprise, Barpeta vs. ITO, Ward - Barpeta Road, Barpeta

ITA 201/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: The Ld. Assessing Officer, Nor Any Return Of Income Was Filed. Thereafter, The Ld. Assessing Officer Proceeded To Add Rs. 1,15,71,000/- Under Section 69A & 69C Of The Act.

Section 147Section 271ASection 69ASection 69C

202/GTY/2024 Sumaiya Enterprise order and remand this matter back to the file of Ld. Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, after giving an opportunity of being heard. We may caution the assessee that he must avail of the opportunities to present the facts before the Ld. Assessing Officer so that

Aluminium Industries (Assam) Private Limited, Tinsukia vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tinsukia

ITA 187/GTY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. Assessing Officer. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) is seen to have proceeded to confirm the action of the Ld. AO.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 234ASection 250Section 271ASection 69A

liable to be quashed, since it has been passed in haste without application of mind and without allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard which is in violation of the principles of natural justice and hence the entire proceeding was bad in law and thus the assessment order be quashed

Aluminium Industries (Assam) Private Limited, Tinsukia vs. ITO, Ward - 1, Tinsukia

ITA 186/GTY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. Assessing Officer. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) is seen to have proceeded to confirm the action of the Ld. AO.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 234ASection 250Section 271ASection 69A

Sunita Choudhury, Makum Road vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tinsukia

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

ITA 136/GTY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Largely On Account Of The Fact That Even At That Stage The Assessee Did Not Respond To The Notices Issued From His Office.

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 68

only the factual issues on merit but also the jurisdictional issues would also be adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A), after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. To this end, we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and remand the same back

Manoj Kumar Yadav, Siwan vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Siwan

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

ITA 439/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna06 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250

aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the appeal to him to be decided afresh, who shall allow an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and also grant an opportunity of representing the case and be heard to the Ld. AO as per rule

Damodar Prasad Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(1), Jaipur

ITA 65/JPR/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Khandelwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250

before Learned CIT(A), we hereby restore the appeal to the files of Learned CIT(A) for decision on merits, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant, and that too, in accordance with law. 6 Sh. Damodar Prasad Sharma vs. ITO 15. Copy of receipt in proof

Gorbandh Fort and Palace Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 141/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

Section 115BSection 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 194ASection 250Section 69

file of the AO to rectify the amount of addition made and for balance amount reheard the assessee after giving a proper opportunity of being heard. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the AO without seeking any adjournment and for balance amount produce the documents to establish identity, genuineness

Shri Gyan Gopal Ji Maharaj Trust, Ajmer vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

ITA 1369/JPR/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Porwal, C.A. (Through V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

reply to the show cause notice dated 09.09.2024. Therefore, we deem it a fit case where the appellant should be afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard. Result 9. In view of the above discussion, this appeal is disposed off, for statistical purposes, and the matter is restored to the file ... application afresh, except the issue of registration under RPT Act, 1959, which stands finalized herein. Learned CIT(E) to afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the applicant and that too, in accordance with law. 5 Shri Gyan Gopal Ji Maharaj Trust 10. The applicant trust to comply with

Nutan Chandani, Jaipur vs. Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit

14. As a result, this appeal is disposed of, for statistical purposes and the appeal filed before Learned CIT(A), NFAC is restored to its original number

ITA 1325/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Learned Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Challenging Assessment Order Dated 29.05.2023Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Vide Impugned Order, Learned Cit(A) Dismissed The Appeal Filed By The Assessee, While Observing That Despite Ample Opportunities Afforded To The Appellant For Furnishing Of Explanation In Respect Of The Grounds Of Appeal, The Appellant Failed To Comply With The Same.

For Appellant: Mrs. Pallavi Joshi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 148Section 69A

assessee had received Rs. 4,16,00,000/- from various parties by offering them higher returns, and the said amounts remained unexplained despite opportunity. 4. Arguments heard. File perused. 5. Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that the appellant could not participate in the proceedings before Learned ... want of sufficient time, and as such, matter be remanded for decision afresh, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. On the other hand, Ld. DR for the Department has referred to the impugned order and submitted that ample opportunities were afforded to the appellant before

Sahayog Charitable Trust, Nashik vs. CIT(E), Pune

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

ITA 2871/PUN/2024[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Mar 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2871/Pun/2024 Sahayog Charitable Trust, Vs. Cit, Exemption, Pune. Ramashree Plot No.10, Near Trikoni Garden, Swarka Kathe Galli, Nashik- 422011. Pan : Aabts8420M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket M. Joshi (Virtual) Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing 05.03.2025 : Date Of Pronouncement 06.03.2025 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 08.11.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit, Exemption, Pune Rejecting The Application For Registration U/S 80G Of The It Act. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit(E) Erred In Rejecting Application Filed By The Appellant In Form 10Ab For Approval Under Sub Clause (Iii) Of First Proviso To Section 80G(5) Without Appreciating That The Said Action Was Not Justified On Facts & In Law. 2. The Appellant Submits That There Was A Reasonable Cause Due To Which Notice Dated 1.10.2024 Issued By Cit(E), Pune Could Not Be Complied & Hence, It Is Prayed That In The Interest Of Justice, The Matter May Please Be Restored To The File Of Cit(E), Pune To Adjudicated The Same On Merits After Granting One More Opportunity Of Being Heard. 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add/ Alter/ Amend Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. Joshi (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 80GSection 80G(5)

matter may please be restored to the file of CIT(E), Pune to adjudicated the same on merits after granting one more opportunity of being heard. 3. The appellant craves leave to add/ alter/ amend any of the grounds of appeal.” 2 3. Facts of the case, in brief

Subrata Mukherjee, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 471/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)

grounds taken by the assessee on merit, by passing a speaking order. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission it wants to make in support of its grounds of appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments and rule

Rishikesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2431/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 245Section 250Section 250(4)

remand proceeding. 2. The Ld. CIT (A), NFAC erred in law as well as on facts to provide adequate and proper opportunities to be heard to the appellant before passing the order. 3. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in law as well as on fats to confirm the addition ... assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who passed an ex parte order dismissing the appeal of the assessee as sufficient opportunity of being heard was provided to the assessee yet no compliance was made. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed

Kusum Tater, Mumbai vs. ITO - 47(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1297/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 68

well as before the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, in the interest of justice it was deemed appropriate that another opportunity of being heard may be allowed to the assessee to which the Ld. Sr. DR did not raise any serious objection. Hence as proper representation could not be made before ... aside and the appeal is restored to him to be done de novo. The assessee shall be granted an opportunity of being heard and shall be at liberty to make submissions in support of the grounds of appeal raised and the Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions

Credit Guarantee Fund Trust for Micro and Small Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT Exemption-1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 179/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarcredit Guarantee Fund Vs. Dcit(E) – 1(1) Trust Mumbai. 1St Floor, Sidbi Swavalaman Bhavan, Avenue – 3, Lane 2, G-Block, Bkc, Bandra (E) Pan/Gir No. Aaatc2613D (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(iia)Section 250

Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld. CIT(A)] erred in passing order u/s 250 of the Act without giving opportunity of being heard through video conferencing inspite of specific request made by the appellant trust in written submission, thereby not followed the principles of natural justice

Sri Guru Singh Sabha Cbd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner (Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 178/MUM/2025[N.A]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2025

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

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

Section 12A

considered view that the ld. CIT(E) ought to have given a reasonable I.T.A. No. 6651 /Mum/2024 2 and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we restore this issue to the file ... directed to decide the issue afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard and the assessee is directed to comply with the notices of the ld. CIT(E) and furnish all the requisite details. 4. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Visible Chits (Maharashtra) Private Limited, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

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

ITA 410/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaravisible Chits (Maharashtra) Vs Income-Tax Officer, Private Limited, Thane Ward15(3)(2),Mumbai F/49, Eternity Mall, Teen Hath Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Naka, Thane-400 604 Mumbai-400 020 Pan: Aadcv1633L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kartik Natarajan Respondent By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik,(Sr Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Kartik NatarajanFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik,(SR DR)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 68

refrain from expressing any opinion that may prejudice the reassessment proceedings. It is, however, imperative that the assessee is afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard during the reassessment proceedings and is allowed to submit any evidence or documents necessary for the proper determination of the assessment. At the same

DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Nouveau Developers Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, cross objection by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and appeal by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2129/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri. Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Nouveau Developers Private Income-Tax-2(3)(1) Limited Mumbai. 702, Natraj, Mv Road, Junction, Vs. Western Express Highway, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400069. (Pan: Aaccn5280G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Naresh Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande, SR. AR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 43CSection 50C

denovo meritorious adjudication, after taking into consideration, submissions made by the assessee. Needless to say, assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard and to make any further submissions, if so desired. Assessee is also directed to be diligent in attending the hearing proceedings. Accordingly, ground raised by the assessee

Kuber Metpack P. Ltd (Formerly Known As Kelvin Metpack P.Ltd), Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi

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

ITA 1409/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwal

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Because the action of CIT(A)-2, New Delhi is being challenged on facts and law for not providing reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessment order being passed is in violation of the principle of natural justice and without giving adequate time and opportunity to the appellant

M/S M Subba Raju, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer-1, Rajnandgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 19/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.19/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. M Subba Raju D. No.32-12-16, Flat No.401, Sri Sri Kakatiya Towers, Boyapati Madhavrao Street, Mogalrajpuram, Vijaywada Pan: Aaefm3293R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1, Rajnandgaon (C.G) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 69A

reconciliation of said bank accounts vide letter of CIT(A), NFAC dated 12.11.2024. Whereas, the appellant did not furnish the said details despite opportunity of being heard given. 5.6 Hence, I am of the considered view that the appellant did not discharge his onus of proving the genuineness

Purnima Priyadarshi, Nalanda vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Biharshrif

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

ITA 435/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna05 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

dated 31.03.2024 dismissed the appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) has extracted the relevant paras of the assessment order and since despite granting sufficient opportunities of being heard, the appellant did not make any submission, he held that the assessee had no specific submissions and documentary evidences to file in respect ... play it was considered appropriate that the request of the assessee to set aside the case may be allowed so that a proper opportunity of being heard may be provided. Hence, after examining the facts of the case, the adjournment was refused and it was deemed appropriate to set aside