← 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

Sai Pragathi Estates & Constructions Pvt Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer (Int. Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1627/HYD/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1627/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2009-2010 Sai Pragathi Estates & The Income Tax Officer- Constructions Pvt. [Int.Taxn]-1, Hyderabad Vs. Limited, Hyderabad. Pin – 500 004. Pin – 500 029. Telangana. Telangana. Pan Aadcs4150P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri A Harish, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 12.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21.01.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Sri A Harish, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 148Section 161Section 163Section 163(1)(c)Section 163(1)(e)

said section clearly states that no person shall be treated as the agent of a non-resident unless he has had an opportunity of being heard by the Assessing Officer as to his liability to be treated as such. In the case on hand, the AO has not provided proper ... section 9 of this Act. (2) No person shall be treated as the agent of a non- resident unless he has had an opportunity of being heard by the Assessing Officer as to his liability to be treated as such.” 6.4. The Assessing Officer has specifically applied clause

Sgd Pharma India Private Limited, Mahabubnagar vs. DCIT, Circle -3 (1), Hyderabad

ITA 130/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita-Tp Nos.130 & 447/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) M/S. Sgd Pharma India Vs. Dy.Cit/I.T.O Private Limited, Mahabubnagar Pan:Aadcc7815K (Appellant) Ward/Circle 3 (1) Hyderabad (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala, Ca राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By:: Smt. K. Haritha, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 21/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: Both These Appeals Are Filed By M/S. Sgd Pharma India Private Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Final Assessment Orders Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. Ao”) Under Section 143(3) Read With Sections 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act") Dated 25.02.2022 & 27.07.2022 For A.Y 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively In Pursuance Of The Directions Issued By The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (“Ld. Drp”). Since Identical Issues Are Involved In These Two Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. K. Haritha, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 270ASection 40A(7)Section 43BSection 92C

ITA No 130 and 447 of 2022 SGD Pharma India P Ltd आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME

M/S. Truthful Vintrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 12(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1718/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Truthful Vintrade Pvt. Ltd.…..……….………….……….……….……Appellant 248, Russa Road, Kol - 700033.. [Pan: Aadct7083N] Vs. Ito, Ward-12(2), Kolkata……………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhishek Bansal, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri V. Vidyadhar, Cit, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 13, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.06.2025 Of The Cit(A)-21, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012–13. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Drew Our Attention To The Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Act Dated 13.06.2016, Whereby The Ld. Pcit-4, Kolkata Has Directed The Assessing Officer To Examine The Credits Appearing In The Books Of Assessee As Share Capital Including Premium & Nature Of Transactions, Identity Of Investor & Its Genuineness After Providing Sufficient Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee. The Ld. Ar Therefore Submits That The Present Appeal Becomes Infructuous In View Of The Order Passed U/S 263 By The Ld. Pcit Dated 13.06.2016. M/S Truthful Vintrade Pvt. Ltd 3. We Have Perused The Materials On Record & Find That The Ld. Pcit-4, Kolkata Has Passed An Order U/S 263 Of The Act Dated 13.06.2016 Directing The Assessing Officer To Reexamine The Matter Afresh. We, After Considering The Submission Of The Ld. Ar, Dismiss The Present Appeal As Become Infructuous

Section 250Section 263

books of assessee as share capital including premium and nature of transactions, identity of investor and its genuineness after providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ld. AR therefore submits that the present appeal becomes infructuous in view of the order passed

DCIT, CC-1(4), Kolkata vs. Jupiter International Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1678/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Cc-1(4), Kolkata ………….……………………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Jupiter International Limited..……………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Unnayanam, 20A, Ashutosh Chowdhury Avenue, Kol-19.. [Pan: Aaacj6956B] Appearances By: Shri P. N Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Nandini Sureka, Advocate, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 12, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.10.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014–15. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 197 Days & The Revenue Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. After Going Over The Said Petition, We Find Sufficient Reasons Behind The Delay & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153ASection 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

total income of the assessee. The appellant submitted that the said additions of Rs. 11,42,572/- was made without providing any opportunity of being heard. The appellant further submitted that while providing details of Finance Charges (which includes interest expenditure incurred in unsecured loan) in response to notice issued ... total income of the assessee. The appellant submitted that the said additions of Rs. 16,86,052/- was made without providing any opportunity of being heard. The appellant further submitted that while providing details of discount allowed in response to notice issued under section

Gopal Banik, Kolkata vs. PCIT(Central), Kolkata -2, Kolkata

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

ITA 1430/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2019-20 Gopal Banik…….…………..……..……….………….……….……….……Appellant 20, Apc Road, Kol- 700009.. [Pan: Aegpb1186E] Vs. Pcit (Central)-2, Kolkata…………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri K K Khemka, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sandeep Kumar Mehta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 05, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.11.2024 Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2020–21. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee With A Delay Of 174 Days & The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of The Delay. After Going Over The Said Affidavit, We Find Sufficient Reasons Behind The Delay & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 132Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 270A(7)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69A

Rs.6,56,386/- and Rs.3,20,000/- was deleted by the Hon’ble ITAT. During the penalty proceedings, the assessee was provided sufficient opportunity of being heard and after hearing the assessee, the tax payable on the under reported income of Rs.22,65,699/- and penalty was imposed

Dona Builders Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5375/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan() Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dona Builders Pvt Ltd Dcit, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai 108, Shiv Aashish S.V. Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Vs. Andheri West, Mumbai- 400058 400020 Pan No. Aaacd 3116 F Appellant Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Shah Assessee By : Mr. Annavaram Kosuri, Sr-Dr A/W Revenue By Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad, Cit Dr : 06/11/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 21/01/2026 Order Per Bench These Five Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax

For Appellant: Mr. Annavaram Kosuri, SR-DR a/wFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Shah
Section 147Section 68

Assessing Officer shall verify, after affording reasonable The Assessing Officer shall verify, after affording reasonable The Assessing Officer shall verify, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard t opportunity of being heard to the assessee, whether any share o the assessee, whether any share application money was received ... creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions, after thiness, and genuineness of the transactions, after thiness, and genuineness of the transactions, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Dona Builders