“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

Laxmi Narayan Packaging Industries, Guwahati vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1), Guwahati

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

ITA 60/GTY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 80

appeal: “1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not justified in passing the impugned order without giving proper and meaningful opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 2. That neither the Id. Assessing Officer was justified in making addition of Rs. 65,00,000/- to the Total ... examined. Ground no. 1 relates to the Ld. CIT(A) not being justified in passing the impugned order without giving proper and meaningful opportunity of being heard to the assessee and ground no. 2 is against the addition of Rs. 65,00,000/- confirmed

Luit Academic Development Society, Jorhat vs. ITO W-2(3), Exem, Guwahati

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

ITA 42/GTY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Sri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 250

order. The Ld. CIT(A) shall pass the order de novo after considering the submissions of the assessee and also after giving an opportunity of being heard to the Ld. AO as per rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The assessee shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment

Luit Academic Development Society, Jorhat vs. ITO, W-2(3), Exem, Guwahati

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

ITA 41/GTY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Sri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 250

Shikhar Chand Jain, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 555/RPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 555/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shikhar Chand Jain Gali No.3, Ashok Vihar Colony, Near Bansal School, Pandri, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Achpj2931Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 250(6)

Learned CIT (Appeal), NFAC u/s 154 r.w.s. 250 may kindly be set aside and the Learned CIT (Appeal) be directed to afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and to put forward his submissions on merits of the grounds raised in the Grounds of Appeal ... r.w.s. 250 dated 23.10.2024 may kindly be set aside and the Learned CIT(Appeal) may kindly be directed to afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and dispose of the grounds of appeal on merits after considering all the facts and documents. 4. The Appellant craves leave

Nishant Jain, Bilaspur vs. ACIT Central Circle, Bilaspur

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

ITA 512/RPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 510, 511 & 512/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Nishant Jain Ring Road No.2, Shanti Nagar, Near Sidhasikhar Vistar, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan: Agepj9793M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: S/shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal &For Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

order and restored the same to the file of the A.O with a direction to pass a fresh assessment order after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4 Nishant Jain Vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur ITA Nos. 510 to 512/RPR/2024 5. As the assessee

Nishant Jain, Bilaspur vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Bilaspur

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

ITA 511/RPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: S/shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal &For Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

Nishant Jain, Bilaspur vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Bilaspur

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

ITA 510/RPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: S/shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal &For Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

Panchsheel Solvent Pvt. Ltd., Rajanandgaon vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Raipur

Appeal is allowed, partly for statistical purposes

ITA 110/RPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 110/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal & Vimal KumarFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250

absence of which the Ld. AO would be at liberty to decide the issue in accordance with law. 7.5 Needless to say, reasonable opportunity of being heard and liberty to furnished necessary evidence, explanation and contentions to the assessee in the set aside assessment proceedings. 7.6 In result, Ground ... appropriate to set aside the same to the file of Ld. AO for verification and fresh adjudication. 8.4 Needless to say, reasonable opportunity of being heard and liberty to furnished necessary evidence, explanation and contentions to the assessee in the set aside assessment proceedings. 8.5 In result, Ground

Ranchodbhai Karamshibhai Dhami, Rajkot vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)(2), Rajkot

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 431/RJT/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Jan 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Diesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 431/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Ranchodbhai Karamshibhai Dhami. Vs. Ito Ward-1(2)(2), Rajkot. M. N. Manvar & Co. Ca, 504, Star Plaza, Nr. Circuit House, Phulchhab Chowk, Rajkot. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabts8458H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri M. N. Manvar, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/ 12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20 /01/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [(In Short “Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 01/05/2024, Which In Turn Assessment Order Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Followed: 1). Cit(A)-Nfac Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Short Term Capital Gain Made By Ao Rs. 29,56,695/- U/S 50C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For The Income In The Nature Of Business

For Appellant: Shri M. N. Manvar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 50C

restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, we deem it fit and proper

Bihar State Hydroelectric Power Corporation Limited, Patna vs. ITO, Ward-2 (2), Patna

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

ITA 109/PAT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna20 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: The Ld. Ao In Justification Of This Claim. Before The Ld. Cit(A) Also, It Is Mentioned In Para 9.2 At Page 10, That The Assessee Did Not Submit Any Document Or Explanation Inspite Of Several Opportunities Granted. Thereafter, The Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Impugned Addition.

Section 250

narration in accounts. Accordingly, we remand this matter back to the file of Ld. AO for examining this issue again, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee in this regard. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

Cmm Keti Jv, Indore vs. ITO 1(3), Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 73/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Cmm Keti Jv, Income-Tax Officer, 108, Shalimar Corporate 1(3), Center, Indore. बनाम/ 8-B, South Tukoganj, Vs. Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aakfc7524K Assessee By Shri Shashank Sharma, Ca & Shri Prakash Gupta, Ca Revenue By Shri Sanjeev H. Bhagat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.01.2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 270A(9)Section 271BSection 272(1)(d)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

under: “1. The Hon’ble Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law by not allowing the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard by not allowing physical hearing/vitual hearing which is against the Principle of Natural Justice. 2. The Hon’ble Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred

Avinash Dadhich, Pal Road vs. ACIT, Circle(Intl. Tax), Jaipur

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

ITA 824/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.824/JPR/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Avinash Dadhich A-191 Mansarovar Scheme Pal Road, Jodhpur. बनाम The ACIT, Circle, International Taxation, Jaipur. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.:BIFPD2373H निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.) (Th. V.C.) राजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by: Shri Anup Singh(Addl.CIT) सुनवाई की

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.) (Th. V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh(Addl.CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 69

source of purchase of immovable property during the course of appellant proceedings. The appellant has stated that without providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity of being heard AO made addition of Rs. 52,38.814/-on account of unexplained investment. Various opportunities were provided to the appellant during the course of assessment

Mustafa Katthawala, Kota vs. DCIT ACIT, Circle-2, Kota

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

ITA 1156/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM\nआयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 1156/JPR/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16\nMustafa Katthawala\nProp. Shakti Steels, Near Reliance\nPetrol Pump Jhalawar Road, IPIA\nKota.-324005.\nबनाम | The DCIT/ACIT,\nVs.\nCircle-2,\nKota.\nस्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AGPPK5043C\nअपीलार्थी / Appellant\nप्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Devang Gargieya, Adv.\nराजस्व की ओर से / Reven

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234BSection 234CSection 234DSection 244ASection 45(3)

assessment proceedings u/s 147 with approval of competent authority. Accordingly, order u/s 148A(d) dated 25/07/2022 was passed after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard and notice u/s 148 dated 26/07/2022 was issued to the assessee. In response to the notice issued, the assessee requested for adjournment which ... facts of the case in passing the impugned order in a haste on dated 29.12.2023 without affording adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard. The impugned order having been framed in gross breach of natural justice, kindly be quashed or alternatively be restored to the file

Mohan Lal Choudhary, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle-4, Jaipur

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

ITA 1077/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr. DR a

Section 115BSection 68

assessee prayed that the Ld. CIT(A) and the AO have passed ex-parte order and the assessee was not provided adequate opportunity of being heard. Thus, the assessee may be provided one more opportunity to advance his arguments/submissions before the AO in the interest of equity and justice ... view that lis between the parties has to be decided on merits so that nobody’s rights could be scuttled down without providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, the matter is restored to the file of the AO to decide it afresh by providing one more opportunity

Madan Lal Choudhary, Jaipur vs. ITO-7(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 1059/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sisodiya (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 48

that the assessee's case is adjudicated as an ex-parte in both the proceeding before lower authorities and was not given sufficient opportunity of being heard. The bench noted that Principles of natural justice are soul of an administration of justice and need to be adhered to in order

Ranjeet Singh Panaich, Vpo Nangal Khurd vs. Income Tax Officer, Jagraon

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

ITA 31/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rupesh Nagpal, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 2(14)Section 250Section 69A

then by Worthy CIT(A) u/s 250 deserves to be quashed since the same has 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

Rk Worldinfocom Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2008/BANG/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri Sudhendra BR, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 244ASection 250

file of AO for fresh consideration after allowing TDS credit as per law and the AO is directed to grant reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee is also directed to cooperate with the department for completing the assessment at the earliest without taking unnecessary adjournments

Jyothi Pattin Souhard Sahakari Niyamithi, Gadag vs. Income Tax Officer Gadag, Gadag

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

ITA 2005/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2015-16

For Respondent: Shri Kashinath H Kalmath

Section 143(1)Section 263Section 80P

After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that the assessee has come up in appeal just to seek an opportunity of being heard before the AO. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we restore this matter to Page 3 of 3 the file of AO for examining ... necessary documents before the AO for establishing the factum of cost of funds. Needless to say that the assessing officer will grant appropriate opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing any order. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order

Vinod Kumar Singhal, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1004/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar S. V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. K. Mishra, PR.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 263

erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify

Shri. Vadagur Narayanappa Premachandra, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1032/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Balram R.Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar .E, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 54

details before the AO and the AO is directed to consider all the documents and decide the issues after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 20. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court