← 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

ACIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Ushodaya Enterprises Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1782/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

Commissioner is directed to consider the matter afresh in keeping with the decisions of this court after giving the petitioners an opportunity of being heard. At least 48 hours' clear notice must be given to the petitioners. The Commissioner will communicate the final order to the petitioner within eight weeks ... yielded exempt income during the year under consideration, in accordance with the law laid down in the aforesaid judicial precedents, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 17. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.1781/Hyd/2025 for Assessment Year 2017-18 is partly allowed

ACIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Ushodaya Enterprises Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1781/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

Commissioner is directed to consider the matter afresh in keeping with the decisions of this court after giving the petitioners an opportunity of being heard. At least 48 hours' clear notice must be given to the petitioners. The Commissioner will communicate the final order to the petitioner within eight weeks ... yielded exempt income during the year under consideration, in accordance with the law laid down in the aforesaid judicial precedents, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 17. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.1781/Hyd/2025 for Assessment Year 2017-18 is partly allowed

Dandeboina Ramesh, Warangal vs. ITO, Ward-(1), Warangal

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

ITA 1661/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Section 115Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 69A

with law. The Ld. AO shall examine the issue afresh and decide the matter on merits in accordance with law after providing proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall be at liberty to file all necessary evidences in support of his claim before

Dugginnigari Subramaniyam Naidu, Tirupati vs. ACIT., Circle - 1(1), Tirupati

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

ITA 1443/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. AO.

Section 133(6)Section 68

also dismissed. 8 The assessee has contested grounds of appeal No. 4 stating that the assessing officer did not provide opportunity of being heard and thereby violated the principle of natural justice. 8.1 I have considered facts and circumstances of the case, submission of the assessee and material available ... time in the assessment order. Therefore, there is no force in the argument of the assessee that the assessee was not rendered opportunity of being heard and thereby violated the principle of natural justice. 8.2 Therefore, considering the facts and circumstance of the case, submission of the assessee and material

Lagusari Pedda Sunakanna, Kurnool vs. DCIT., Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1172/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Vice President), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

Section 69A

directed to examine the evidences to be filed by the assessee and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to co-operate with the Ld. AO in the set-aside proceedings and shall

Income Tax Officer, Coimbatore vs. Sivakumar Sathyapriya, Coimbatore

ITA 4107/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

Section 130Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250

matter may be remanded to the file of ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7 ITA No.4107/CHNY/2025 [D] 5. On the other hand, none appeared on behalf of the Assessee despite the issued service

C 2062 Kaveripakkam Primary Agricultural Coop Crdeit Society, Vellore vs. ITO, Ward-1, Vellore

ITA 3998/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.3998/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 C 2062 Kaveripakkam Primary Vs Income-Tax Officer, Agricultural Coop Credit Society, Ward-1, No.2, Barracks 320, Theradi Street, Cross Street, Officers Kaveripakkam, Arakkonam, Lane, Vellore-632001. Vellore – 632505. Pan: Aahfc5813C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri J. Saravanan – Advocate Revenue By Ms. R Anitha, Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 18/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13/03/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2019-20 Dated 08.08.2025. The Assesseeraised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250Section 69A

Courts. The matter requires remand to the file of ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 9. In view of the above circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that in order to meet the ends

Nitin, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward-9(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3376/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:3376/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Nitin, The Income Tax Officer, 3-A, No.123, Arihant Apartment, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 9(1), Briklin Road, Chennai. Puraswalkam, Chennai – 600 007. Pan: Adupb 2164M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri K. Vishwa Padmanaban, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. T.Mythili, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 12.11.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2018-19. :- 2 -: 2. At The Very Outset, We Notice That The First Appellate Authority (Faa) Has Confirmed The Addition Made By The Ao Stating That The Assessee Has Failed To File Any Evidence To Contradict The Findings Of The Ao Despite Giving Numerous Opportunities.

For Appellant: Shri K. Vishwa Padmanaban, CAFor Respondent: Ms. T.Mythili, JCIT
Section 250

remit the matter back to the file of the FAA with a direction to examine the issue afresh after :- 4 -: affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly

Suresh Kumar Pal, Mumbai vs. ITO Wad-22(3), Mumbai

ITA 723/MUM/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 250(6)Section 56(2)(vi)

appeal before the Learned CIT(A) for denovo adjudication before Learned CIT(A) as per law after granting the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Assessee is directed to be vigilant and track the appellate proceedings through Income Tax Business Application (ITBA) Portal. It is clarified that in case

Shilpa Shetty Kundra, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, in the above terms

ITA 996/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Ms. Simran Dhawan, Adv. & RaviFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (SR. D.R.)
Section 133(6)Section 194CSection 250

unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved with the impugned assessment order and the additions made without giving adequate opportunity of being heard and in gross violation of principles of natural justice, the appellant has preferred the present appeal before your honour. With the above factual back ... making an alleged addition of gift received from her spouse without issuing notices u/s 133(6) to her husband and without provide an opportunity of being heard to check the veracity of the allegations raised in the impugned order. 5. During the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer vide show cause

Maharashtra Maritime Board, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Exem. Circle 2, Mumbai

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

ITA 8938/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 250

facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in not providing the appellant adequate opportunity of being heard, for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order or otherwise. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case

Maharashtra Maritime Board, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Exem. Circle 2, Mumbai

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

ITA 8937/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 250

facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in not providing the appellant adequate opportunity of being heard, for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order or otherwise. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case

Maharashtra Maritime Board, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Exem. Circle 2, Mumbai

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

ITA 8936/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 250

facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in not providing the appellant adequate opportunity of being heard, for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order or otherwise. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case

Ramesh Lalawat, Vashi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 28(2)(1), Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 8838/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Ramesh Lalawat Income Tax Officer, Room No 102, Goma Sadan Ward 28(2)(1), Plot No 400, Mumbai Nr Cisf, Juhu Gaon Vs. Sector No. 11, Vashi, Navi Mumbai - 400703 (Pan: Aeepl2218K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Ajay R. Singh, Advocate Revenue : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1074653077(1), Dated 18.03.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Mum-W-(272)(91), U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 15.09.2023, For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 249Section 249(2)Section 3Section 5

delay of 114 days in filing the appeal. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal of the appellant without giving any opportunity of being heard to your appellant to explain the case, thus principle of natural justice is violated. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate ... notices for the hearing for effective and expeditious disposal of the assessment proceedings. Needless to say, assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard and to make all the relevant submissions as required to substantiate the claim made by it. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Nathan Anil Rao, Mumbai vs. The ITO -Circle 23(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 8666/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant (Account Member) & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vijaykumar Soni, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Tiwari
Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69

invoking the provisions of section 68/Section 69 of the Income Tax Act; the provisions of section 68/Section 69 of the Income Tax Act; Opportunity of being heard Opportunity of being heard 2. Ld. NFAC has erred i 2. Ld. NFAC has erred in passing ex-parte order without granting opportunity ... parte order without granting opportunity of being heard to the Appellant by rejecting the Appellant's short adjournment of being heard to the Appellant by rejecting the Appellant's short adjournment of being heard to the Appellant by rejecting the Appellant's short adjournment request and not appreciating the reasonable

Bharat Thakarshi Mamania, Mumbai vs. ITO 22(1)(6), Mumbai

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

ITA 8510/MUM/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69C

account of alleged premium paid on two insurance policies issued by Birla Sun Life Insurance Company, without granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 3. It was submitted before ... shall issue notice to the assessee both in physical form as well as through the online portal and grant adequate opportunity of being heard. The Ld.CIT(A) shall also examine the assessee’s contention regarding the alleged discrepancies in the issuance and service of statutory notices and the recording

Mr. Shridhar Gangaram Anumandala, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 22(3)(6), Mumbai

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

ITA 8391/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. Anbuselvan (Sr. DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 50Section 55ASection 56(2)(x)Section 69

case, and in the interest of natural justice, we are of the view that the assessee deserves to be granted one more opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, the matter is restored to the 5 Mr. Shridhar Gangaram Anumandala file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to consider

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Blend Financial Services Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the R

ITA 8088/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant (Account Member) & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh SanghviFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari (SR. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 40A(2)(b)

additional relying upon the additional evidence filed during the appellate proceeding without giving evidence filed during the appellate proceeding without giving opportunity of opportunity of being heard to AO violating the provisions of Rule 46 (A) ( being heard to AO violating the provisions of Rule ... affording the learned CIT(A) admitted additional evidence without affording the learned CIT(A) admitted additional evidence without affording the Assessing Officer an opportunity of being heard, thereby the Assessing Officer an opportunity of being heard, thereby the Assessing Officer an opportunity of being heard, thereby violating Rule

Apcotex Industries Limited, Raigarh vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 15(1)(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assesse stands partly allowed

ITA 6023/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35

course of business, or whether the property was merely let out for earning rental income. 8.1. The Ld.AO shall afford adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and examine the relevant facts and supporting material that may be furnished. Thereafter, the issue shall be decided afresh in accordance with

Getinge Medical India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai Maharashtra

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

ITA 4872/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 115Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 156Section 234ASection 270ASection 37Section 41Section 41(1)(a)

erred in not appreciating the copy of ledgers submitted by the Appellant during the hearings and no opportunity of being heard was granted to the Appellant. 5. Ground 5: Short grant of Tax Deducted at Source of Rs. 1,08,275/- The Ld. AO/Ld. DRP erred in granting credit