← 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

Mandar Rawool, Thane vs. ITO, Kudal

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2099/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2099/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Mandar Rawool, V The Income Tax 2107, L Wing, Bhoomi Acres S Officer, Kudal. Near Hiranandani Estate Internal Road, Opp Suraj Water Park, Kavesar, Thane – 400615 Pan:Attpr3716Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Harshavardhan Vivek Bapat Revenue By Shri Ambarnath Khule – Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 25/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2022-23Dated 10.07.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 22.03.2024.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 250(68)

Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2020, which guarantees the right of effective hearing. The impugned order, having been passed without affording a fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard, is bad in law and unsustainable. 3. On facts and in law, the order passed ... against principles of natural justice, as the Appellant was not afforded proper opportunity of being heard. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of ₹6,00,000/- alleged to be cash payment for purchase of flats, solely on the basis of third-party documents found during search

Vk Warehousing Enterprises, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee firm and the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our observations recorded hereinabove

ITA 737/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.737/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18) M/S. V K Warehousing Enterprises, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aakfv3288R (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.881/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. V K Warehousing Enterprises, Circle 6(1), Hyderabad. Vs. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Rajesh Vaishnav, C.A. राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri P. Dhivahar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/01/2026

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Vaishnav, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Dhivahar, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234BSection 271(1)(b)Section 40Section 69Section 69CSection 801B

Assessing Officer’s(“Ld. AO”) order, which is bad in law. 2. The Hon’ble CIT(A) passed the order without providing adequate opportunities of being heard which is against the principles of equity and natural justice and is liable to be quashed 3. The Hon’ble CIT(A) erred ... disallowance of depreciation, the addition of unexplained cash deposits, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia), and has also alleged denial of proper opportunity of being heard. 10. We have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the Ld. Authorised Representatives of both parties on the aforesaid issues

Sujith Surampudi, Ghatkesar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mancherial

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

ITA 1630/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1630/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23) Shri Sujith Surampudi Vs. Income Tax Officer Ghatkesar Ward 1 Pan:Cwcps7355A Mancherial (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.A Swathi Sheela राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Helan Ruby Jesindha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 23/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Sujith Surampudi (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 15.09.2025 For The A.Y 2022-23. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order U/S250 Of The Act Dt. 15-09-2025 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi Is Page 1 Of 7

For Appellant: C.A Swathi SheelaFor Respondent: : Smt. Helan Ruby Jesindha, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 144rSection 250Section 272Section 272A(1)(d)

Rs.20,000/-. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) passed the order u/s 250 of the act on 15- 09-2025 without giving proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant which is against to the principles of National justice and therefore penalty order u/s 272A(1)(d) is to be quashed

Primary Agricultural Co Op Credit Society Limited Minarpally, Minarpally Village vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nizamabad

ITA 140/HYD/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.140/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Primary Agricultural Vs. Income Tax Officer Cooperative Credit Society Ward 1 Ltd Minarpally, Minarpally Minarpally, Nizamabad Pan:Aabap7760J (Respondent) (Appellant) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: C.A Akshay Surana राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By:: Smt. Helen Ruby Jesindha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 07/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd Minarpally (“The Assessee"), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 05.11.2024 For The A.Y, 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Page 1 Of 18

For Appellant: C.A Akshay Surana
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 80P

above mentioned information suggests that income to the extent of Rs.60,13,500/- has escaped assessment. 3. Based on the above an opportunity of being heard as per provision of Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was provided to the assessee vide show cause notice dated

Initiative for Moral and Cultural Training Foundation Telangana, Hyderabad vs. CIT (Exemption), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1015/HYD/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1015/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2024-25) Initiative For Moral & Vs. Commissioner Of Income Cultural Training Tax (Exemptions) Foundation Telangana, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aacti2564F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate T. Chaitanya Kumar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Initiative For Moral & Cultural Training Foundation Telangana, (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), (“Ld. Cit(E)”) Dated 19.03.2025 For The A.Y 2024-25. Page 1 Of 6

For Appellant: Advocate T. Chaitanya KumarFor Respondent: : Smt. U. Mini Chandran, CIT
Section 80G

consider the submissions afresh and pass a reasoned and speaking order, after giving the assessee an effective opportunity of being heard. 6. The Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld. CIT(E), stating that the Ld. CIT(E) has jurisdiction to assess the genuineness of activities before granting approval