“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

Suresh Gulabchand Oswal, Pune vs. ITO Ward 6(3), Pune

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

ITA 2493/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sarvesh KandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

restore the matter back to his file for adjudication afresh and pass speaking order on merits after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall provide the requisite support in terms of submitting the relevant documents / evidence as may be required/ called upon and may also

Shri Martand Deosansthan Jejuri, Pune vs. ITO, Exemption Ward 1(2), Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1290/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sachin P Kumar –For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(d)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

That, on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) 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 facts and in the circumstances of the case ... /NFAC and restore the matter back to his file for adjudication afresh on merits and pass speaking order on merit after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee who shall provide the requisite support in terms of submitting the relevant documents/evidence as may be required/called upon

Universal Enterprises, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-36, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2579/KOL/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2579/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Universal Enterprises……... .……………………………………..….……….Appellant 1St Floor, 7, Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata -1. [Pan: Aaafu8003H] Vs. Dcit, Circle-36, Kolkata...……..............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Gautam Bose, Staff, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 27, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 25.11.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-12, Delhi [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 Filed Its Return Of Income On 31.10.2006 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.8,97,815/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass Followed By Notice Issued U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act But The Notices Were Could Not Serve Personally To The Assessee. Therefore, The Assessing Officer Served Notices Through Affixation. Due To Non-Compliance On The Part Of The Assessee, The Assessing Officer Passed The Assessment Order U/S 144 Of The Act By Disallowing Future Commodities Speculation Debited In P&L

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250

deem it necessary to remand the whole issue back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for re-examination after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed I.T.A. No.2579/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Universal Enterprises to comply with notices issued during

Samaresh Paul, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward 25(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2574/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2574/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Samaresh Paul……...…... .……………………………………..….……….Appellant 16C, Bose Pukur Road, Kolkata – 700042. [Pan: Aeupp8135R] Vs. Ito, Ward-25(1), Kolkata...……..............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Amit Agarwa & T. Wasi, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 27, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 29.10.2024 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 Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2016-17 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.7,42,850/-. The Assessee Thereafter Filed His Revised Return Of Income U/S 139(5) Of The Act By Declaring The Same Total Income. However, It Was Noticed That The Assessee Has Made Property Transaction Of Rs.98,51,000/- During The F.Y 2015-16 Relevant To A.Y 2016-17 Which Has Been Escaped Within The Meaning Of Section 147 Of The Act. Accordingly, Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued Followed By Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act. However, The Assessee Did Not Turn Up In Response To The Notice U/S 148 Of The Act. Accordingly, The Assessing Officer Made

Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

whole issue back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to re-examine the issues after condoning the delay of providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to comply to the notices issued during the remand proceedings without any fail

Oplus Steel and Power Pvt. Ltd.(Formerly Known As Swati Concast and Power Pvt. Ltd.), Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2550/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

matter back to the Ld. AO for making the reassessment de novo. 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. Accordingly

Yash Mining Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 4(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2524/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2524/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Yash Mining Pvt. Ltd.…... .……………………………………..….……….Appellant 71 Canning Street 5Th Floor, Room No.512A, Kol-1. [Pan: Aaacy4989R] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(1), Kolkata...……..............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 27, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 30.03.2024 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. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 194 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause & The Delay Was Not Intentional. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2012-13 U/S 139(1) Of The Act Declaring Total Income Of Rs.31,470/-. In The Case Of The Assessee, An Information Was Received That The Assessee Company Was One Of The

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 68

that the matter may be remanded back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to re-examine the issue after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR objected to such prayer made by the assessee stating that since ... necessary to remand the whole issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issues after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to comply to the notices issued during the remand proceedings without any fail. 8. In terms

M/S. Saketh Builders, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 44/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Shivakumar G, CA

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 69

after considering the Page 4 of 4 objections and the documents to be filed by the assessee and also after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open

K S Binani HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(2) 1), Mumbai

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

ITA 269/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

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

Section 133(6)Section 148Section 234Section 234ASection 271(1)Section 271ASection 68

after NFAC was introduced b) No verification was made 2 ITA No. 269/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2018-19 K S Binani HUF c) Without granting opportunity of being heard d) No asset exceeding Rs 50 lac is found. e) Approval was mechanically granted Without prejudice to the above and alternatively ... considering the issues on merits based on the evidence filed by the assessee in accordance with law. Needless to say the proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

Shree Chamunda Realty, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Thane

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

ITA 259/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 154

portal. However, the Ld.CIT(A) passed impugned order without going into the merits of the case. The Ld.AR thus prayed for an opportunity of being heard on merit. 2.1 The Ld.CIT(A).DR though objected, could not controvert the submissions of Ld.AR. We have produced the submissions advanced by both ... detailed order on merits, by considering submissions/evidences filed by the assessee in respect of the claims raised therein. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted process. Accordingly grounds raised by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. In the result appeal filed

Pehchhan Pragati Foundation, Mumbai vs. Salil Mishra, CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai

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

ITA 6739/MUM/2024[2025-2026]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2025-2026

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.6739/Mum/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2025-2026)

For Appellant: Shri Om KandalkarFor Respondent: Mr. R.A.Dhyani, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(ii)

been ascertained. However, the ld. Commissioner without raising any specific objection qua violation of statutory provisions and/or giving any further opportunity of being heard, rejected the application, vide impugned order and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The assessee further submitted that it has carried ... object is in violation of the statutory provisions and/or rejecting the application filed by the Assessee, has not given any reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 7.2 Thus considering the aforesaid facts in totality, as the application filed by the assessee in Form No.10AB was neither complete

Infrasructure Services, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer 33(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for

ITA 6625/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

Assets are available with assessee. The Hon'b CIT (Appeal) has confirmed the Appeal on ex-parte basis without providing with the proper opportunity of being heard. The notice issued was not served to the Assessee and Lrnd. CIT(A) has passed order only on assumption that the notice sent ... about the notices issued and therefore it can be said that the notice has been served to the Assessee and therefore the proper opportunity of being heard is not given. 2. Disallowance of depreciation Rs.2,65,545/ on assets wherein purchase bills were not provided: On the basis of facts

Dkt Trading Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 12(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6569/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was 05.10.2024.

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

appeal before the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication before CIT(A) as per law. The CIT(A) is directed to grant reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee and adjudicate the appeal after taking into consideration the result of the quantum appeal filed by the Assessee before

Kaushaliyadevi Atmaram Singhania Charitable Truse, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 6320/MUM/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhrikaushaliyadevi Atmaram V/S. Cit (Exemption)-Mumbai Singhania Charitable Trust बनाम Room No. 601, 6Th Floor, 45 & 46, Ideal Industrial Cumballa Hill, Mtnl Te Estate, Senapati Bapat Building, Peddar Road, Dr. Marg, Lower Parel, Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-400013 Mumbai-400026 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatk4043P Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

Without prejudice to the generality of the above ground, the impugned order is bad in law and illegal as no sufficient and fair opportunity of being heard was provided to the Appellant. 2.3 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case

Ambika Trading Corporation, Mumbai vs. DCIT 24(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for both assessment years stands partly allowed

ITA 6058/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

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

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148

notional rent. We accordingly direct the Ld.AO to ascertain the Municipal ratable value for computing the notional rent. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to assessee in accordance with law. Accordingly the grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed. 8. Identical ... observations mutatis mutandis, the Ld.AR is directed to compute the notional rent by ascertaining the municipal ratable value. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to assessee in accordance with law. In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for both assessment years stands

Ambika Trading Corporation, Mumbai vs. DCIT 24(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for both assessment years stands partly allowed

ITA 6057/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

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

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148

Mr. Sushma Jairaj Bhandari, Mumbai vs. I.T.O 25(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5679/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am Sushma Jairaj Bhandari I.T.O. 25(3)(4) Janu Villa Bunglow, Chikuwadi, Mumbai Vs. Borivali (W), Mumbai-400 092

For Appellant: Shri Satish R. ModiFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh

Section 139(1)Section 147

learned first appellate authority with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds are allowed for statistical purpose. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

Varian Medical Systems International (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner /Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5086/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

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

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 92D

5086/Mum/2024; A.Y. 2020-21 Varian Medical Systems International (India) Private Limited Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed a reasonable opportunity of being heard in such fresh proceedings. Accordingly, ground 3.1 to 3.6 raised by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. In the result the appeal filed

Varian Medical Systems International (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5060/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

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

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 92D

Shri Sandeep S Sharma, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 20(3)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 4801/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal a/w Ms. Neha Paranjpe, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R

Section 143(1)Section 44ASection 68

directed to examine the same and allow the deduction after verification. Needless to mention that the AO shall give reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 28th

Red Hat India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Aadl/Jt/Dy/ACIT/ITO, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 801/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C

party transactions at 37.58% whereas the Ld. TPO computed it at 23.55%. The TPO is directed to recalculate the RPT/sales ratio by providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. So this comparable is remitted back to the Ld. TPO to decide afresh. Interglobe Technology Quotient Pvt. Ltd. (Interglobe ... challenged filter applied by the Ld. TPO it has to be considered in the light of the financials of Interglobe by providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. This comparable is also remitted back to the Ld. TPO to decide afresh. Kelton Tech Solutions Ltd. (Kelton