“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

Kiran Anil Gothi, Washim vs. ITO Ward-1, Akola

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed, but for statistical purpose only

ITA 217/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Jineshi ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

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

learned CIT(A) and direct him to adjudicate the matter afresh on merit and in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is also directed that the assessee should not seek adjournment without there being a justified reason. Accordingly, all the grounds raised

Abhishek Golechha, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed, but for statistical purpose only

ITA 88/NAG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 143(3)

Shri Sanjay Dhanraj Jain, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Nagpur

ITA 59/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A

above observations and allegations made by the AO as the same are based on conjectures and surmises of AO without providing opportunity of being heard to assessee and also without properly verifying the facts of the case. (2) The AO has stated that the onus of proving the source ... with respect to the amount received as unsecured loan and documentary evidence furnished. The observation drawn by AO is thus without giving proper opportunity of being heard and thus the addition made in such circumstances is not in accordance with the principal of natural justice. The AO could have informed

Shri Sanjay Dhanraj Jain, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Nagpur

ITA 58/NAG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A

Shri Sanjay Dhanraj Jain, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Nagpur

ITA 57/NAG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A

Shri Sanjay Dhanraj Jain, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Nagpur

ITA 56/NAG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A

Shri Sanjay Dhanraj Jain, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Nagpur

ITA 55/NAG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A

Shri Sanjay Dhanraj Jain, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Nagpur

ITA 54/NAG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A

Shri Sanjay Dhanraj Jain, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Nagpur

ITA 53/NAG/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A

above observations and allegations made by the AO as the same are based on conjectures and surmises of AO without providing opportunity of being heard to assessee and also without properly verifying the facts of the case. 26 Shri Sanjay Dhanraj Jain ITA no.53, to 59/Nag./2024 ... with respect to the amount received as unsecured loan and documentary evidence furnished. The observation drawn by AO is thus without giving proper opportunity of being heard and thus the addition made in such circumstances is not in accordance with the principal of natural justice. The AO could have informed

Lalit Kumar Agarwal, Kota vs. ITO, Rjn-W-(780)(2), Kota

8. In the given situation, concerned about compliance with the principles of natural justice, including the one of being heard, in the interest of justice, we dispose of this

ITA 1545/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Learned Cit(A) Has Been Dismissed & The Assessment Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 147Section 250

heard Learned DR for the Revenue while referring to the significant aspect of the assessee remaining non compliant before the lower authorities despite opportunities of being heard, and put it to him if he has any objection to the remand of the matter to Learned CIT(A) for decision afresh ... Learned DR has very candidly raised no objection to the remitting of the matter to Learned CIT(A) to enable the assessee another opportunity of being heard there, and for decision of the appeal fresh. Result 8. In the given situation, concerned about compliance with the principles of natural justice

Cheturam Suman, Baran vs. ITO-Ward-Barn, Baran

14. In the given situation, concerned about compliance with the principles

ITA 1530/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Cit(A) Was Also Filed About 174 Days Of The Prescribed Period Of Limitation, But, Ld. Cit(A)

For Appellant: Shri C.P.Chawla, ITPFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 144ASection 250

deem it a fit case where the matter needs to be remitted to Learned CIT(A) for decision afresh, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we hereby condone the delay in filing of the appeal before this Appellate Tribunal ... impugned order, restore the appeal to the files of Learned CIT(A), NFAC, for disposal afresh in accordance with law, while providing reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appellant shall participate in the proceedings there without fail. 7 Cheturam Suman The above mentioned amount of two costs to be deposited

Al Rasheed Charitable Society, Haryana vs. JCIT, Exemptions, Chandigarh

The appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by way of remand for fresh decision in

ITA 843/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

For Respondent: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

then by Worthy CIT(A) deserves to be quashed since the same have been passed without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 5. That the appellant craves leave for any addition, deletion or amendment in the grounds of appeal on or before the disposal of the same ... interalia contended before us that impugned order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice in as much as no opportunity of being heard was afforded to the assessee before the impugned order was passed by the Ld. CIT(A). In addition to this it was brought

Sbs Biotech Unit II, Sirmour vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 413/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Pal Garg, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 801CSection 80I

liberty to adduce the facts as deemed relevant before the JAO in consequence to this order. The JAO shall allow the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and to make relevant submissions, and reverify the submissions already made. It may be ensured that any fresh assessment order is passed within ... facts as deemed relevant before the JAO in consequence to the impugned order and the JAO was directed to allow the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and to make relevant submissions, and re-verify the submissions already made. 41. We therefore have a situation where at the time

Sumanbhai Keshavlal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Mehsana Ward-5, Kadi

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

ITA 838/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 274Section 69A

taken the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not granting the adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant during the course of appellate proceedings, such opportunity should have been granted in the interest of justice. 2. The learned

Mukesh K. Mulchandani, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 707/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri T.R.Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.707/Ahd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2014-15) बनाम/ Mukesh Kevalram The Income Tax Mulchandani Officer Vs. A-137,Sarboday Nagar Soc. Ward-4(2)(3) (No.2) Ahmedabad–380 015 Sola Road,Ghatlodia Ahmedabad – 380 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aewpm 4974 R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Parin Shah, Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 22/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 25 /02/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Appellate Order Dated 14/08/2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)”] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Relating To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Filed His Return Of Income For Ay 2014-15 On 18/10/2014 Mukesh K. Mulchandani Vs. Ito Asst.Year - 2014-15 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.8,64,710/-. The Assessee Is A Civil Contractor & Doing Business In The Name Of Proprietary- Concern, M/S.M.K. Builders. Regular Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Act Was Completed On 24/11/2016 Assessing Total Income At Rs.8,69,220/-. The Assessment Was Revised U/S.263 Of The Act To Make Addition Of Rs.80 Lakhs On Account Of Unexplained Credit In The Books Of The Assessee As ‘Advance’ Received. Another Addition Of Rs.24,03,750/- Was Made By The Ao On Account Of Unexplained Credit As Per Form 26-As.

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

Mukesh K. Mulchandani vs. ITO Asst.Year - 2014-15 consider the submission of the assessee and pass order in accordance with law by providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced

Pune Bench of Association of Physicians of India, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer (E), Ward-1(1), Pune

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

ITA 2884/PUN/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Feb 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Sachin P. KumarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 12(1)(ac)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)(iii)

Exemption) has grossly erred in cancelling the provisional registration granted u/s 12AB r.w.s. 12A(1)(ac)(vi) without granting proper opportunity of being heard and thus violating the principles of "audi alteram partem". 4. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Exemption ... rejecting the application made in Form 10AB under clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the IT Act without granting proper opportunity of being heard. 5. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (E) has grossly erred by recording his non satisfaction

Pune Bench of Association of Physicians of India, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer (E), Ward-1(1), Pune

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

ITA 2768/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Feb 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Sachin P. KumarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 12(1)(ac)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)(iii)

Shri Dodeshwar Mahadev Mandir Trust, Satana, Nashik vs. CIT, Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 2605/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Feb 2025

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

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

section 12A(ac) for permanent registration without considering the submission of the assessee in the right perspective and without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard. The order of the CIT Exemption may kindly be set aside and permanent registration u/s 12AB may kindly be granted with the restoration of provisional ... substantiate its case before him by filing the requisite details and decide the issue as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to make its submissions before the Ld. CIT(E) on the appointed date without seeking

Shri Samarth Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 2545/PUN/2024[2025-2026]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Feb 2025AY 2025-2026

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

For Appellant: Shri Dattatray M. KhuneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

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

substantiate its case before him by filing the requisite details / documents and decide the issue as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to make its submissions before the Ld. CIT(E) on the appointed date without

Shree Brahmachaitanya Seva Mandal, Pune vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 2498/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Feb 2025

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

For Appellant: Mr. Nikhil GugaleFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(vi)

Income Tax Exemptions (CIT(E)'), Pune, Rejecting the Appellants application for seeking regular registration u/s 80G of the Act is without providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee and hence the order passed be declared as null and void. 2. On facts and circumstances prevailing in the case ... rejection order. Accordingly, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(E) be set aside and be kindly directed to give one more opportunity of being heard. The appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect. 3. The appellant prays to be allowed to add, amend, modify, rectify, delete