← 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

P K Infraproject Private Limited, Pune vs. DCIT CC 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 1818/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 36(1)(iii)

condone the delay in filing of the appeals and decide all these appeals on merit as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to participate in the appeal proceedings and submit the requisite details before

P K Infraproject Private Limited, Pune vs. DCIT CC 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 1817/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 36(1)(iii)

condone the delay in filing of the appeals and decide all these appeals on merit as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to participate in the appeal proceedings and submit the requisite details before

P K Infraproject Private Limited, Pune vs. DCIT CC 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 1816/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 36(1)(iii)

condone the delay in filing of the appeals and decide all these appeals on merit as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to participate in the appeal proceedings and submit the requisite details before

P K Infraproject Private Limited, Pune vs. DCIT CC 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 1815/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 36(1)(iii)

condone the delay in filing of the appeals and decide all these appeals on merit as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to participate in the appeal proceedings and submit the requisite details before

P K Infraproject Private Limited, Pune vs. DCIT CC 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 1804/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 36(1)(iii)

condone the delay in filing of the appeals and decide all these appeals on merit as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to participate in the appeal proceedings and submit the requisite details before

Pratap Waman Khandebharad, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle - 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 1789/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 36(1)(iii)

condone the delay in filing of the appeals and decide all these appeals on merit as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to participate in the appeal proceedings and submit the requisite details before

Navjyoti Education Society, Jhargram vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Exemption, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2343/KOL/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Feb 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.2343/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2024-25 Navjyoti Education Society………………………………………..………….……Appellant Matri Bhaban, Vidyasagar Pally, Jhargram, Dist-Jhargram, West Bengal-721507. [Pan: Aabtn2609M] Vs. Cit(Exemptions), Kolkata……..……....….….. ………………..........…...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri P. K. Ray, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Raja Sengupta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 30, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 12, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.09.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(Exemption)’] Rejecting The Application Of The Assessee For Approval As Per The Provisions Of Section 80G(5)(Iv)(B) Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was Granted Provisional Approval U/S 80G(5)(Iv) Of The Act In Form No.10Ac By An Order Dated 31.12.2021 Which Is Valid From 31.12.2021 To A.Y 2024-25. Subsequently, The Assessee Filed Application For Approval U/S 80G(5)(Iii) On 16.01.2023 In Form 10Ab Under Rule 17A Of The I.T. Rules 1962. Subsequently, A Notice Was Issued To The Assessee At The Email Address Provide By The Applicant Trust Requesting Details Of Its Activity Along With Supporting Document. In Response To That, The Assessee Furnished Certain Documents Which Were Duly Examined & It Was Noted That The Assessee Had Commenced Its Activities On 06.04.2000. As Per Cbdt

Section 80G(5)(iii)Section 80G(5)(iv)

involved in this appeal. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to reexamine anew after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In terms of the above, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 12th February

Asirvatham Madalaimuthu, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Krishnagiri

In the result, the appeals of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2335/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2335/Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 Mr.Asirvatham Madalaimuthu, Income Tax Officer, Prop:Deepika Traders, Ward-1(1), No.11, Varatanapalli Salai Road, Krishnagiri Asst. Unit, Church Complex, Income Tax Department Kandhikuppam, Krishnagiri Dist., Tamil Nadu-635 104. [Pan: Bwkpm7080H] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri S.Sridhar(Erode) Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.12.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.02.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri S.Sridhar(Erode) AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 145(3)Section 250

order of lower authorities is set aside and the Ld. AO is directed to re-adjudicate the matter de novo after giving due opportunity of being heard and by passing a speaking order. The decision to remit it back to the Ld. AO is taken in view of the fact ... Apex Court in the case of TIN box 249 ITR 216 on the subject matter. The Ld. AO shall give opportunities of being heard to the assesse and it shall be bounden upon the assesse to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. AO. Any non-compliance

Pollangi Chinnappan Chittybabu, Ambur, Vellore, Tamilnadu vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Vellore

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

ITA 1776/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1776/Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2017-18 Pollangi Chinnappan Chittybabu, Income Tax Officer, No.3/97, Thattaparai Village, Ward-3, Kadavalam Post, Vellore. Thuthipet Via Ambur, Vellore Dist, Tamil Nadu-635811 [Pan: Ahjpc3990P] आयकर अपील सं./Sa No.34/Chny/2024 (Ita No.1776/Chny/2024) निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2017-18 (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri A.S.Harihara Kumar, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Keerthi Narayanan, Jcit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.12.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.02.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri A.S.Harihara Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT
Section 250Section 69

that the main issue in the present appeal is that the Ld. First Appellate Authority has disposed of its appeal without giving proper opportunity is being heard. The Ld. Counsel explained that in the instant case, the Ld. AO had made addition of Rs.62 ... case that the assessee had not been able to respond to the solitary opportunity given by the Ld. CIT(A). Reasonable opportunity of being heard is the foundation stone of natural justice and cannot be violated by any quasi-judicial authority. We are of the view that

Shri. Sanjav Keshav Satpute, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 22(3)(6), Mumbai

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

ITA 6437/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita Shah, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. Laxmi Kanth, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

and/or the case may be remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, so that the Assessee could get proper opportunity of being heard. 4. On the contrary the Ld. D.R. though supported the impugned order, however could not refute the aforesaid factual aspects. 5. Having considered ... order and to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. Thus, the case is accordingly remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner. 5.1 The Assessee is also directed

Sanjay Kalsi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Cirlce- 54(1), New Delhi

Appeal is disposed of by remitting the issue to the file of the Ld

ITA 4445/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shuklaito, Ward 1(4) Vs. Tanu Garg Income Tax Office, B- House No. 146, Block, New Cgo Complex Sector -23 Nit-Iv, Faridabad Faridabad Haryana – 121001 Haryana – 121005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adupt4430G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

statement relied upon the assessee as above and to pass order accordingly. The Ld. Assessing Officer is further directed to grant a further opportunity of being heard to the assessee and to consider the evidences on record or any other evidence which the assessee may choose to file

DCIT, Circle- 8(1), New Delhi vs. E.I. Dupont India P. Ltd., Gurgaon

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

ITA 2473/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 89Section 90

condone the delay in filing the appeal and remit the matter back to Id. CIT (A) to decide afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard. We also direct assessee to make proper submissions and appear before the Id.CIT (A) on the date of hearing and cooperate with

E.I. Dupont India P. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA No

ITA 1574/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Nirbhay Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Daya Inder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 153a

remit back the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer with the directions to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, for which Ld. DR has no objection. Assessee is directed to fully cooperate with the AO during the proceedings. We hold

Krishna Gopal Saraf, New Delhi vs. ACIT, CC- 28, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 4564/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri J. N. Shukla, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 270ASection 270A(9)Section 271ASection 274Section 69Section 69ASection 80P

issues in dispute before it afresh uninfluenced by earlier observations made in this regard. Needless to mention that the assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is at liberty to file fresh evidences and additional grounds, if any, in support of its contentions. With these observations

Motavada Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd., Lodhika vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot

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

ITA 504/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139(1)(a)Section 143(1)Section 3

light of the observations as set out above. We hold and direct accordingly. The Ld. CIT(A) will afford opportunity of being heard to the assessee before deciding the issue. The assessee ITA No.504/RJT/2024 (A.Y.2018-19) Motavada Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. v. ITO will also be at liberty

Tata Automobiles, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer, Thrissur

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

ITA 1127/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: --- None---For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR

remanded to the file of the CIT(A) with the direction to dispose of the appeal de novo on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Careleavers Inner Circle Forum, Jaipur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur

ITA 903/JPR/2024[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Feb 2025AY 2024-2025

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

For Appellant: Sh. Pankaj Sancheti, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 8Section 80G

matter be remanded to Learned CIT(E) decision of the Careleavers Inner Circle Forum vs. CIT (E) application afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the applicant. Non maintainability of the application u/s 12AB 10. The application having derived u/s 11 & 12 of the Act, as regards ... same could be scrutinized for the purposes of registration. From the above discussion, we find that in the interest of justice, one more opportunity of being heard be granted to the assessee, with a chance to produce all the material documents before Learned CIT(E). Result 19 As a result

Jagdish Kumar Arora, Bhawanimandi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- Kota, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1195/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 69

which was duly served through registered e-mail by ITBA on 12.09.2018 and served by registered post. Due to change in incumbent, fresh opportunity of being heard was issued on 08.08.2019. Notice u/s 142(1) and questionnaire were issued to the assessee on 23.08.2019 which was duly served

Uma Shankar Awasthi, Unnao vs. Income Tax Officer- 2(4), Unnao

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

ITA 773/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Uma Shanker Awasthi V. Income Tax Officer 2(4) House No.76 Unnao Hiran Nagar, Unnao Tan/Pan:Afypa1750N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Akshay Agrawal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06 02 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 02 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 115BSection 144Section 69A

which the AO had passed the order under section 144 of the Act. He prayed that the assessee may be afforded an opportunity of being heard before the AO where the assessee shall place all the documents in support of the transactions entered into by the assessee during the year

Tota Ram Srivastava, Bareilly vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 709/LKW/2024[201516]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144Section 253(3)

well as the impugned appellate order of the learned CIT(A), both were passed ex-parte qua the appellant assessee Further, reasonable opportunity of being heard was not provided to the assessee. Learned D.R. for Revenue was in agreement that the issue in dispute regarding aforesaid addition of Rs.1 ... Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo assessment order in accordance with law on this specific issue after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In view of the foregoing, the order of learned CIT(A) is set aside and restored back to the file