← 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

Bijay Murarka, Siliguri vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(2), Siliguri

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

ITA 1204/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Huidrom Robindro Singh, DR

Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we restore the appeal before the ld. AO with a direction to decide the issue afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. ITA No.1204 & 1205/KOL/2024 Bijay Murarka; A.Y. 2013-14 1205/KOL/2024 06. Since

D.C.I.T., Circle-13(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Singhal Brothers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 928/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Kishore, CITFor Respondent: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AR
Section 133(6)Section 250

justice the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. 5. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court. (Rakesh Mishra

Meharunnisa, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2097/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. G. Sathyanarayana, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 156Section 249(4)(b)Section 44ASection 69A

novo consideration and Page 4 of 4 decide the issue as per law. The AO is directed to provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and assessee is directed to produce the necessary documentary evidence in support of her case for speedy disposal of the case and avoid

Sri. T . Rajesh(HUF), Shivamogga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Shimoga

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

ITA 2011/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Gale, Standing counsel for department
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

entire issue in dispute is remitted to the file of the AO to decide the same as per law after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the proceedings before the AO and file the relevant submissions/documents/records which would

Anmol Land Developers, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi (I.T.O. Ward 20(1)(1), Mumbai)

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

ITA 173/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judical Member & Shri Prabhash Shankarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.173/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-2018)

For Appellant: Shri Tejas Chandarana, AR byFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

order and without claiming any deduction or disallowance on the said amount. Suffice to say the Ld. Commissioner shall afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 6.1 The Assessee is also directed to comply with the notices in future and to file the relevant documents for proper adjudication

Asha Deep Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT(Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 14/MUM/2025[N.A]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Sheth on behalf of Ramesh M. Sheth & AssociatesFor Respondent: Dr. K.R.Subhash, CIT-DR
Section 80G(5)

Assessee being aggrieved is in appeal before us and has submitted that the assessee could not get proper opportunity of being heard, as the ld. Commissioner sent the last notice on 13.11.2024 whereas it is a fact that the ld. Commissioner without waiting for the reply of the Assessee passed

Ashwin Ballabchand Parakh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 18(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 6930/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita Shah (Virtually appeared)For Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr.DR

also direct the assessee to fully co-operate with the AO for expeditious completion of the assessment proceedings. After affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the AO may take appropriate decision in accordance with the law. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee

New Bombay Merchants Educational Foundation, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT, CPC Bangalore

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

ITA 6916/MUM/2024[2016-2017]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shriamarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H Pande,SR AR)
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234BSection 246ASection 250

where there was no arithmetical error nor was any 'incorrect claim in the Return of Income and denying an opportunity of being heard as required us. 143(1)(a) by issue of notice proposing adjustment to returned income and inviting objection before making adjustments. which are not authorized ... passing an order u/s 143(1) in gross violation of the provisions of natural justice in as much as no opportunity of being heard was given to the appellant. Your appellants pray that an order passed by the Ld. A.O. u/s 143(1), passed in gross violations of natural justice

Mumbai Animal Association, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exem), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6185/MUM/2024[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarvs. Cit(E) Mumbai Animal Mumbai. Association F/603, Country Park, Dattapada Road, Borivali (E), Mumbai – 400 066. Pan/Gir No. Aaetm5032C (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 250Section 80GSection 80G(5)

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 ... section clause inadvertently, while filing the application for final registration in form 10 AB. Further, we noticed that assessee did not had the opportunity of being heard before Ld. CIT(E) otherwise the assessee might have explained the facts before the Ld. CIT(E) to avoid rejection. Hence, in view

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 3(4), Mumbai vs. Idbi Bank Ltd, Piston Compound Toap

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 5957/MUM/2024[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2025AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.5957/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :1997-98) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Idbi Bank Ltd., Income Tax -3(4), Apulki Cornermenon, Mumbai Piston Compound, Toap 416122, Kolhapur Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabci8842G .. (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.A.Dhyani, CIT,DR
Section 244ASection 250

Tribunal. The assessing officer is directed to compute interest under section 244A as per the claim of the assessee after giving a proper opportunity of being heard.” In view of the above decision of the Hon’ble ITAT on the issue for the year under consideration, AO is directed ... Jurisdictional ITAT Mumbai in the case of Bank of Baroda cited(supra) as per the claim of the appellant after giving proper opportunity of being heard. Thus, Ground no. 1.1 and 1.2 of the appeal raised by the appellant are partly allowed.” 4. It is evident that the ld.CIT

M/S. Jagruti Computech Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. I.T.O, Ward, 1(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5752/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri H S Raheja, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Meena, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

remand the instant case qua levy of penalty to the file of the AO for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. Thus, the case is remanded to the file of the AO accordingly. 5 M/s. Jagruti Computech

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Adar Hotels Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 5519/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee: A.Y. : 2014-15 C.O. No. 255/Mum/2024 : A.Y. : 2014-15 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5519/M/24)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah &For Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr.DR
Section 147

this issue and restore the same to the file of the AO for examining it afresh. After affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the AO may take appropriate decision in accordance with the law. 6. In the cross objection, the assessee has challenged the validity of reopening

Harsha, Jiwana Baghpat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(5) Baraut, Baraut

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

ITA 3527/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer, Harsha, Ward-1(5), Jiwana Baghpat-250611, Vs. Baraut. Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Adlph3085L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri R.K. Gaur, Ca Department By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/02/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Vide Order U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) Dated 01/11/2023 For The Asst. Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & During This Year Had Purchased An Agricultural Land Measuring 8.8200 Hectare In Auction Jointly With Five Other Persons At A Total Sale Consideration Of Rs.1,50,82,200/-. Beside This A Sum Of Rs. Harsha Vs. Ito 7,55,000/- Was Paid Towards Stamp Duty Making Total Cost Of Land Was At Rs. 1,65,92,000/-. As The Assessee Has Not Filed Any Return Of Income, The Reassessment Proceedings Were Initiated By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 On 29/03/2019. The Assessee Has Not Attended The Reassessment Proceedings & The Finally The Reassessment Order Was Passed U/S 144/147 Of The Act On 7/12/2019 Wherein The Ao Had Made The Addition Of Rs. 27,65,333/- Being His Share In Investment In Acquisition Of The Property From Undisclosed Sources.

Section 144Section 148Section 250

direction to admit the additional evidences which were filed before him and dispose of the case on merits, no doubt after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Since we are setting aside the order of CIT (A) to decide the issues on merits de novo

Yasmeen Waseem Parmar, Jamnagar vs. The Pr. CIT, Jamnagar

ITA 194/RJT/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Feb 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.194/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) Yasmeen Waseem Parmar, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Bawa No Delo, Opp. Old Post Income Tax, Office, Nagarpara Main Road, Jamnagar O/S. Khambhaliya Gate, Jamnagar, Gujarat-361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aijph3607F (Assessee) (Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 50CSection 54B

Valuation report given by Govt. valuer 3. Hon'ble Pr. CIT, Jamnagar erred in law and in facts by not providing the sufficient opportunity of being heard and passed an order u/s. 263 without considering the adjournment application by the assessee. 4. The relevant material facts, as culled out from ... order to the extent of the issues mentioned above and directed the Assessing Officer to pass the assessment order afresh, after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. ITA.194/Rjt/2024/AY.2013-14 Yasmeen Waseem Parmar 10. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before

Aboobaker, Kasargad vs. ITO, Ward-1, (Tps), Kasargad

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

ITA 709/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr. AR
Section 144Section 148Section 68

inclined to set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) with the direction to consider the issue afresh after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also make it clear that the assessee is at liberty to file the written submissions and documents when the matter

Sanjay Sahu, Bhopal vs. The Th4E ITO 2(1), Byhopal

ITA 172/IND/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2010-11 Sanjay Sahu, Ito 2(1), H.No.98-A Sector, Bhopal बनाम/ Kasturba Nagar, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Apyps1707D Assessee By Shri Shashank Sharma, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2025

Section 143(3)Section 253(5)Section 68Section 69Section 80C

present case as well as law on the subject. the NFAC/Ld.CIT(A) has erred in passing of Ex-Parte order without giving proper opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject

Lodha Foundation, Jaipur vs. CIT(Exemption), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 12/JPR/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Kaizen Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Opera Hospital Road, S-67-68, Indra Vihar, Kota- 324005 Pan No.: Aabck 7751L ...... Appellant Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Kota ...... Respondent Acit, Circle-2, Kota ...... Appellant Vs. M/S. Kaizen Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Opera Hospital Road, S-67-68, Indra Vihar, Kota- 324005 Pan No.: Aabck7751L ...... Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR, Ld. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

Assessing Officer, after taking into account all relevant material which the Assessing Officer has gathered, shall, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard, make the assessment of the total income or loss to the best of his judgment and determine the sum payable by the assessee

Lodha Foundation, Jaipur vs. CIT (Exemption), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 11/JPR/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Kaizen Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Opera Hospital Road, S-67-68, Indra Vihar, Kota- 324005 Pan No.: Aabck 7751L ...... Appellant Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Kota ...... Respondent Acit, Circle-2, Kota ...... Appellant Vs. M/S. Kaizen Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Opera Hospital Road, S-67-68, Indra Vihar, Kota- 324005 Pan No.: Aabck7751L ...... Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR, Ld. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

Assessing Officer, after taking into account all relevant material which the Assessing Officer has gathered, shall, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard, make the assessment of the total income or loss to the best of his judgment and determine the sum payable by the assessee

Kasana Sanitation Pvt Ltd, Jaipur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

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

ITA 396/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Kasana Sanitation Pvt. Ltd., P. No.-18, Rajeev Vihar Colony Gopal Pura By Pass, Jaipur-302 015 Pan No.: Aadck 9638A ...... Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward 6(1), Jaipur ...... Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. S. L. Jain, Mr. Ashok Kumar GuptaFor Respondent: Mr. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT-DR, Ld. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250

real income should be taxed, we are restoring back the matter to the file of the AO with a direction that a proper opportunity of being heard be given to the assessee and the assessee is directed to be vigilant enough throughout the proceedings and actively participate the same without

Rajesh Kumawat, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(5), Jaipur

In the results declared by the assessee and as submitted by the M/s

ITA 1064/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumarrajesh Kumawat, 10 Ganesh Vihar, Sanganer, Jaipur- 302017 Pan No. Bpbpk 6744L ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4 (5), Jaipur …...Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Vedant Agarwal, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Dhariwal, Ld. CIT-DR Proxy
Section 133(6)Section 250Section 270A

grossly erred in dismissed the appeal of assessee without considering the facts of the case and without giving the proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law also Ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in dismissing the appeal ... restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT (A) for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard on the e-mail idggcjaipur@gmail.com and the assessee is also directed to be vigilant enough this time and participate in the proceedings before