← All Phrases

“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

Aress Foundation, Nahik vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 2485/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Feb 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

also to his file for fresh adjudication. The Ld. CIT(E) shall decide the issue in accordance with law after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 11. In the result

Aress Foundation, Nashik vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 2484/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Feb 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

also to his file for fresh adjudication. The Ld. CIT(E) shall decide the issue in accordance with law after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 11. In the result

Snehalaya, Pune vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 2291/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Feb 2025

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

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

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

Shree Veeralayam Jain Ahinsa Tirth, Pune vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 2215/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Feb 2025

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

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

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 Datta Maharaj Temple, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolhapur

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

ITA 2124/PUN/2024[AY 2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Feb 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

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 Dashanema Mangal Karyalaya Mandal Pune, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 1013/PUN/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Feb 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

substantiate its case before him by filing all 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

Pramod Lakra, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Kolkata vs. Avr Storage Tank Terminals Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the captioned appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2485/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2485/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata.…………………………………………..….……….Appellant Vs. Avr Storage Tank Terminals Pvt. Ltd. ….……............................……...…..…..Respondent 232/A, Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Road, Minto Park, Kolkata-20. [Pan: Aafca6801R] Appearances By: Shri Aakash Agarwal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 25, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 25, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against An Order Dated 17.04.2024 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 159 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Revenue 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. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Challenging Various Grounds. However, The Primary Contention Of The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Allowing Deduction For Payment Of Education Cess & Higher Education Cess Which Is Against The Provisions Of Income Tax

Section 250

with a direction to decide the appeal on correct grounds which were raised by the assessee after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He further submitted that since the impugned order dated 17.04.2024 was not passed on correct facts and without addressing actual issues raised

Sandeep Prasad, Panagarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Durgapur

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

ITA 1399/KOL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: the CIT(A), but the appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) and the learned counsel of Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 29/11/2023.

Section 144Section 148Section 250

Further, the learned A.O. has passed the best judgement order on 06.12.2017 (just after the notice issued date on 05.12.2017) without giving any opportunity of being heard, the learned A.O. has passed the order without following the SoP. 2. The learned A.O. has erred in calculating income as entire cash ... details and documents before the Ld. CIT(A) for enabling him to appraise the evidence afresh. The Ld. CIT(A) would provide adequate opportunity of being heard and also consider admitting new evidence, if filed by the assessee, within the provisions of Rule 46A of the IT Rules. 4 Sandeep

Buckman Laboratoires (India) Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp Circle 1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2451/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. Nageshwara Rao, Advocate (Virtual)For Respondent: Ms.Gauthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37Section 37(1)

books. The Ld.AR, by referring to ground no.1 raised in the memorandum of appeal, submitted that the assessee was not provided with reasonable opportunity of being heard, despite the request for either virtual or physical hearing prior to passing of impugned order. The Ld.AR further submitted that assessee has filed ... deduction u/s.37 were for the purpose of the business of the assessee and is an allowable deduction. The assessee shall be afford reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is ordered accordingly. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

Smt Pushpa Sarji Ramesh Charitable Trust, Sri Banashankari Nilaya Gopalgouda Extension vs. ITO, Ward 1 & Tps, Shimoga, Karnataka

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

ITA 2163/BANG/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, CIT-DR
Section 12A

restored the application filed for registration u/s. 12AB to the CIT(E) to take a decision afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 10. We have also considered the order of the Hon’ble ITAT Hyderabad Tribunal in ITA No. 47/Hyd/2024 dated 15/03/2024 in which

Smt Pushpa Sarji Ramesh Charitable Trust, Shri Banashankari Nilaya Fifty Ft Road vs. ITO, Ward 1 & Tps, Shimoga, Karnataka

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

ITA 2162/BANG/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, CIT-DR
Section 12A

restored the application filed for registration u/s. 12AB to the CIT(E) to take a decision afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 10. We have also considered the order of the Hon’ble ITAT Hyderabad Tribunal in ITA No. 47/Hyd/2024 dated 15/03/2024 in which

Sri. Krishnappa Vinodkumar, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1870/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, CA
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234Section 68

consider the issue afresh after receiving the additional documents if any to be filed by the assessee and also after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Page 7 of 7 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order

Supreme Traders, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 19(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 153/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Parvathy Ganesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 147Section 69A

denovo meritorious adjudication of the grounds raised in the first appeal. 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, grounds taken by the assessee

Shailesh K. Kothari, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-19(3)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 121/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12 Shailesh K. Kothari, Income-Tax Officer, Ward- F/641, Lbs Marg, 19(3)(5), Garden Court Building, Mumbai Vs. Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai – 400 086

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

Assessing Officer for denovo meritorious adjudication, on the issues raised by the assessee in his appeal. 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, grounds

Gheverchand Rikhabchand Jain, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6619/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D/R
Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 68

under:- “1.1. The Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC passed the order u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") is without providing proper opportunity of being heard. The Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC failed to provide opportunity through video conferencing. The action of the Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC is against ... directed to decide the issue afresh after considering all the documents furnished by the assessee and after affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 25th February

Mhada Karmachari Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Mumbai

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal by assessee is allowed

ITA 6372/MUM/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainmhada Karmachari Vs. Assessment Unit Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit Ito Ward 23(2)(1) Room No. 47, Ground Floor, Piramal Chambers, Gruhanirman Bhavan, Lalbaugh, Parel, Bandra (E), Mumbai – Mumbai – 400012. 400051. Pan/Gir No. Aaiam3078P (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 250Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

Commissioner of Income Tax / Income tax Officer, OF Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department ["the A.O."], erred in not granting proper, sufficient and adequate opportunity of being heard to the Appellant while framing the assessment / making the impugned additions. 1.2 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances

Subharma Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exem) Ward, Mumbai

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

ITA 6183/MUM/2024[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarvs. Ito (E), Peddar Road Subharma Charitable Trust Mumbai – 400026. C/O. Sujay Hospital Pvt Ltd Juhu, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai – 400049. Pan/Gir No. Abbts7713G (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 250Section 80G

section code inadvertently while filing the application for final registration in Form 10AB. Further, we notice that the assessee did not have the opportunity of being heard before CIT(E) due to incorrect course of action advised, and that otherwise the assessee might have explained the facts before

Shivram S. Shetty, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Thane

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5651/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri N.K. Billaiya, Am Shivram S. Shetty, Income Tax Officer, Gala No.36, Rajashree Shopping Ward-2(1), Vs. Centre, Mira Road (E), Thane Dist. Thane (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan/Gir No. Akyps 7065D Appellant By : Shri Vasudev Ginde & Shri Kumar Kale, Advocates Respondent By : Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri Vasudev Ginde &For Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh
Section 68

fresh adjudication after verifying the evidences furnished by the assessee. While deciding the issue, the AO must provide due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 4 A.Y. 2016-17 Shivram S. Shetty 8. In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical

Ams Trading and Investment Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5351/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Kumar,ARFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, (Sr. DR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

indifference that is unacceptable. The principles of natural justice operate both ways, while the Revenue authorities are required to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard, the taxpayer is equally obligated to co-operate with the authorities and utilize the opportunities extended. In the present case, despite receiving adequate opportunities ... file of ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication by him while applying the principles of natural justice after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6.4 Moreover, considering assessee’s non-compliant and non- co-operative attitude and lack of diligence in pursuing the appeal, we impose

Mulund Vikas Sahakari Pathpadi Limited, Mulund West vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 26(2)(6), Mumbai, Kautilya Bhavan

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

ITA 5207/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra N. Naik, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.R Makwana, CIT DR
Section 115Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 69ASection 80PSection 81

Assessing Officer for denovo meritorious adjudication, on the issues raised by the assessee in its appeal. 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 5 Mulund Vikas Sahakari