“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

Dileep Kumar Sah, Siwan vs. ITO Ward2(3), Siwan

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 367/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.367/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dileep Kumar Sah……………….....…..…………………....Appellant Makhdoom Sarai, Turha Toli, Siwan, Bihar-841226. [Pan: Gvnps8999L] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(3), Siwan....….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 30, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.09.2023 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 134 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause For Such Delay. 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 Is An Individual & Declared His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 At

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

justice and fair play, remand back the issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee to present his case and to pass a speaking order. We also direct the assessee to strictly comply with the notices

Sanjay Kumar Shukla, Sandila vs. Income Tax Officer, Siwan

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

ITA 362/PAT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250

restore the appeal to the Ld. CIT(A) I.T.A. No.: 362/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sanjay Kumar Shukla. who shall allow one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after considering the reply of the assessee, decide the appeal on the additions ... claim that the transactions related to the business and also for the relief claimed and the Ld. CIT(A) shall also provide an opportunity of being heard to the Ld. AO as per Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 5. In the result, the appeal filed

Raj Kumar, Chapra vs. ITO, Ward- 2(2), Chapra

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 351/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.351/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Raj Kumar………………………….....…..…………………....Appellant Mohalla – Gudari Bazar, Bhagwan Bazar, Daulatganj, Chapra (Saran), Bihar-841301. [Pan: Cikpk8268A] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), Chapra....….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 27, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 30, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.12.2023 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. No One Has Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee In Spite Of Serving Consecutive Notices Of Hearing & The Tribunal Cannot Keep This Appeal Pending For Indefinite Time Due To Non-Representation. Therefore, In The Absence Of Any Authorised Representative Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Decide The Appeal With The Help Of Ld. Dr & Also Considering The Material Available On Record. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Engaged In Fish Marketing. The Assessee Deposited A Sum Of

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)

issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to re-examine the case on merits after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee to represent his case after submitting relevant documents. We also direct the assessee to sincerely comply with the notices issued

Jivachh Yadav, Saharsa, Bihar vs. CIT (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 338/PAT/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.338/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jivachh Yadav.………………..….....…..…………………....Appellant P.O & P.S Chandrayan, Nawhatta, Bihar-852201. [Pan: Ahfpy6939A] Vs. Cit(Appeal), Nfac, Delhi..….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Pankaj Kumar, Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 30, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.09.2023 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 116 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause For Such Delay. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case. 3. Brief Facts Of The Care Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Is Engaged In Retail Business Of Fertilizer & Seeds. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act For The Relevant Assessment

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 40A(3)Section 69A

issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to re-examine the case on merits after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee to represent his case. We also direct the assessee to diligently comply with the notices issued and promptly participate

Rakesh Premnarayan Sharma, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward-4(3), Nagpur

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

ITA 570/NAG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 144Section 249(3)

file of the Assessing Officer 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

Anand and Mandal Associates, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Nagpur

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

ITA 452/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek KumarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

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

Infospectrum India Private Limited, Nagpur vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Nagpur

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

ITA 407/NAG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

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 file Affidavit explaining delay in filing first appeal before the learned

Mohan Pitale (HUF), Amravati vs. ITO Ward - 3, Amravati

In the result, appeals for A

ITA 273/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 147Section 69A

notices were issued to the appellant on 28/09/2022 and 22/02/2024. However, the appellant did not respond to any of these notices. A final opportunity of being heard was provided to the appellant vide notice issued on 07/03/2024 for providing it's 2 Mohan Pitale (HUF) ITA no.272 & 273/Nag./2024 reply ... direct him to adjudicate the appeals 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 by the assessee

Mohan Pitale (HUF), Amravati vs. ITO Ward - 3, Amravati

In the result, appeals for A

ITA 272/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 147Section 69A

Medical College and Hospital Employees Credit Cooperative Society, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(4), Aaykar Bhavan, Bsnl Building, Nagpur

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

ITA 271/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Amarlal Thavardas Panjwani, Amravati vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-5, Amravati

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

ITA 262/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 144Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Sumedh Sopanrao Manwar, Washim vs. ITO Ward 2 Akola, Akola

In the result, appeals for A

ITA 261/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Vinay KawadiyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 144Section 147Section 69A

261/Nag./2024 Assessing Officer and direct him to adjudicate the appeals 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

Sumedh Sopanrao Manwar, Washim vs. ITO Ward 2 Akola, Akola

In the result, appeals for A

ITA 260/NAG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Vinay KawadiyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 144Section 147Section 69A

Sumedh Sopanrao Manwar, Washim vs. ITO Ward 2 Akola, Akola

In the result, appeals for A

ITA 259/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Vinay KawadiyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 144Section 147Section 69A

Sumedh Sopanrao Manwar, Washim vs. ITO Ward 2 Akola, Akola

In the result, appeals for A

ITA 258/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Vinay KawadiyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 144Section 147Section 69A

Sumedh Sopanrao Manwar, Washim vs. ITO Ward 2 Akola, Akola

In the result, appeals for A

ITA 257/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Vinay KawadiyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 144Section 147Section 69A

Geeta Krushna Mahila Urban Credit Co Op Soc Limited Nagpur, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 4(4), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee IS allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the condition as stated in Para–6 above

ITA 246/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Suren DuragkarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

adjudicate the appeal afresh on merit and in accordance with law. Before passing speaking orders, the Assessing Officer shall provide adequate 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

Shridhar Pachghare Guruji Dnyan Prabodhini, Amravati vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Exemptions), Pune

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

ITA 208/NAG/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh V. KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 12A

12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should not be cancelled. The assessee was also 2 Shridhar Pachghare Guruji ITA no.208/Nag./2024 given opportunity of being heard vide the said notice. The assessee was specifically informed that in the event of failure to comply by the due date, the application ... assessee through e-portal and email. However, the assessee neither submitted explanation to the show cause notice till date nor availed the opportunity of being heard. 3. Since, the assessee has not furnished any explanation to the discrepancies communicated to it, it is presumed that the assessee has nothing

Zora Singh, Fatehgarh Sahib vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - Sirhind, Sirhind

Appeal of the assessee is allowed as and

ITA 669/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Addl.CIT DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 253Section 68

provisions of Section 133(6) of the Act. Accordingly, notice under Section 142(1) of the Act alongwith letter providing the assessee opportunity of being heard and requiring the assessee to show cause as to why assessment may not be completed under the provision under Section ... boon deposited by you in your above referred bank account for Rs. 8,48,000/-. v) In the above mentioned facts and circumstances, opportunity of being heard is given to you before making the assessment for A.Y. 2017-18 in your case under the provisions of Section 144 of Income

Sshri Kuldip Singh, Chandigarh vs. Pr.CIT-1, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

ITA 103/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 103/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Kuldeep Singh, Vs. The Pr. Cit-1, 2010, बनाम Chandigarh Sec 21-C, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Bllps7083L अपीलाथ"/ Assessee ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03.12.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2025 आदेश/Order Per Paresh M. Joshi, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee U/S 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Herein Referred To As ‘The Act’] Before This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing No. Itba/Rev/F/ Revs/ 250 /2020-21/1031467646 (1) Dated 14.03.2021 Of Ld. Pcit, Chandigarh-1 Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Relevant A.Y.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 253Section 263

year 2016-17 is cancelled with a direction to the Assessing Officer to pass an order afresh in accordance with law, after allowing opportunity of being heard to the assessee.” 103-chd-2021 Shri Kuldeep Sihngh, Chandigarh 16 2.17 The Assessee being aggrieved by the impugned order has filed