← 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

Sir Cv Raman Educational and Charitable Trust, Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2941/CHNY/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. S

For Appellant: Mr.Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Mr.Bipin C.N., CIT
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

satisfied, pass an order in writing rejecting such application and also cancelling its registration after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard; (c)where the application is made under sub-clause (vi) of the said clause, pass an order in writing provisionally registering the trust or institution for a period ... otherwise of any specified violation; (ii)pass an order in writing, cancelling the registration of such trust or institution, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard, for such previous year and all subsequent previous years, if he is satisfied that one or more specified violations have taken place

Sir Cv Raman Educational and Charitable Trust, Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2940/CHNY/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. S

For Appellant: Mr.Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Mr.Bipin C.N., CIT
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

satisfied, pass an order in writing rejecting such application and also cancelling its registration after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard; (c)where the application is made under sub-clause (vi) of the said clause, pass an order in writing provisionally registering the trust or institution for a period ... otherwise of any specified violation; (ii)pass an order in writing, cancelling the registration of such trust or institution, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard, for such previous year and all subsequent previous years, if he is satisfied that one or more specified violations have taken place

Vgn Projects Estates Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2019-20 & 2020-21 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2922/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2864 & 2922/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# /Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21

For Appellant: Mr. P.M. Kathir, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N. CIT
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

auditor. The Ld. AR further submitted that even the rectification petition u/s. 154 of the Act was also dismissed without giving any opportunity of being heard. The Ld. AR also submitted that the assessee prayed for opportunity before the CIT(A) for video conferencing in order to explain the difference

Vgn Projects Estates Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2019-20 & 2020-21 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2864/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2864 & 2922/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# /Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21

For Appellant: Mr. P.M. Kathir, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N. CIT
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

auditor. The Ld. AR further submitted that even the rectification petition u/s. 154 of the Act was also dismissed without giving any opportunity of being heard. The Ld. AR also submitted that the assessee prayed for opportunity before the CIT(A) for video conferencing in order to explain the difference

Jaffer Ali Naseema Begum, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-3(1), Coimbatore

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

ITA 2819/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2819/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# /Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr. P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha. CIT
Section 144Section 144ASection 250

High Court and decide the issue on merits in accordance with law. Needless to say that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Jaffer Ali Naseema Begum :- 5 -: 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 04th

Smita Suresh Janwalkar, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 368/MUM/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsmita Suresh Janwalkar Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 27(3)(1), Bldg No 168 Panchaganga It-Office, Vasi Railway Station Chs, Pantnagar, Ghatkopar E, Building, Thane, Mumbai-400075. Navi Mumbai-400703. Pan/Gir No: Bbqpj2341M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 56(2)(x)

order passed by the learned CIT(A) is in violation of the principles of natural justice, as no effective and reasonable opportunity of being heard was granted to the appellant. 4. The appellant submits that the non-appearance before the learned CIT(A) was due to reasonable cause ... aside and the matter be restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard. 13. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at or before the time

Amit Shantaram Bagade Mited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Int Taxation Ward 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 832/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Despande &For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69

duly confronted to him and he is given due opportunity to explain the same. It was held that in the instant case, adequate opportunity of being heard has been provided to him and rules of natural justice have been duly followed. It was held that the extract of relevant statements ... assessee has been given adequate opportunity at this stage and hence, there should not be any grievance with regard to the lack of opportunity of being heard. In view of the same, the plea of the assessee regarding cross examination did not find favour with

Sudhir Namdev Kadam, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 42(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 7175/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsudhir Namdev Kadam, Vs. Ito Ward 42(3)(4) 501/1/A Wing Panchasheel Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400051. Chs, Dr E Moses Road, Worli Naka, Mumbai, Mumbai, Worli S.O 400018. Pan/Gir No: Aqypk0373Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Prateek Jain Respondent By Ms. Deepika Arora (Sr Dr) Date Of Hearing 04.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 O R D E R Per Bijyananda Pruseth, Am:

Section 10Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 24Section 250Section 80CSection 80D

completing the assessment under section 144, despite the fact that the assessee was never validly served and no reasonable or effective opportunity of being heard was granted. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming ... payment, the CIT(A) shall condone the delay and decide the matter on merits in accordance with law after granting adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard of the assessee. The grounds are allowed for statistical purpose. 8. Since we have set aside the order of CIT(A) and remanded

Amit Shantaram Bagade, Thane vs. ITO (Int Tax) Ward-1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 6286/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Despande &For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69

duly confronted to him and he is given due opportunity to explain the same. It was held that in the instant case, adequate opportunity of being heard has been provided to him and rules of natural justice have been duly followed. It was held that the extract of relevant statements ... assessee has been given adequate opportunity at this stage and hence, there should not be any grievance with regard to the lack of opportunity of being heard. In view of the same, the plea of the assessee regarding cross examination did not find favour with

Bimal Kumar Ghosh, Raiganj vs. ITO, Ward 2(4), Raiganj

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

ITA 1600/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2026AY 2013-2014

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Soumitra Ghosh, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

interests of justice, we are remitting this issue back to the file of AO for de-novo reassessment after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue as per law. The assessee is directed to substantiate his case with cogent documents to the satisfaction

M/S. Dinesh Textile Mills, Tiruppur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Tiruppur

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

ITA 3062/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3062/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Suraj Nahar, C.A ()For Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40

from sale of MLFS scrip and adjudicate the claim in accordance with law. Needless to say that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is ordered accordingly. M/s. Dinesh Textile Mills :- 3 -: 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Karthi Venkatachalam, Dindigul vs. DCIT, Non Corporate Circle-2, Madurai

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

ITA 2192/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2192/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Shri Karthi Venkatachalam, The Deputy Commissioner M2/27, 4Th Cross, R.M. Colony, Vs. Of Income Tax, Dindigul – 624 001 Non-Corporate Circle 2, Madurai Pan: Arppk 5742D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri A.G. Sathyanarayana, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A.T. Krishnamoorthy, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.03.2026 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 06.06.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is An Individual Engaged In The Business Of Servicing As An :- 2 -: Agent/Distributor To Itc Products, Running Restaurant As A Franchisee To Adayar Ananda Bhawan & Also Running A Petrol Bunk On Behalf Of Bpcl. For The Assessment Year 2020-21, Assessee Had Filed His Return Of Income On 13.02.2021 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.49,50,380/-. The Assessment Was Reopened By Issuing Notice U/S.148 Of The Act On 13.05.2024. Subsequently, The Ao Completed The Reassessment Vide Order Dated 04.03.2025. The Ao Made Addition Of Rs.3,22,511/- U/S.69A R.W.S.115Bbe Of The Act & Making Adhoc Disallowance Of 20% Expenditure Of Rs.6,96,350/- Since Same Was Not Verifiable (Disallowance Of Rs.1,39,271/-).

For Appellant: Shri A.G. SathyanarayanaFor Respondent: Shri A.T. Krishnamoorthy, Addl.CIT
Section 148Section 250Section 69A

claim. Accordingly, the issues raised before us are restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO shall afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issues afresh in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to file all requisite details, extend full

Parshuram Bindhnath Roy, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(2) Previously Ward- 3(1)(5), Vadodara

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

ITA 1652/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleparshuram Bindhnath Roy, Income Tax Officer, Vs. 404, Atlantis Heights, Opp. Ward 3(1)(2), Vadiwadi Fire Station, Sarabhai Vadodara Main Road, Nr. Genda Circle, Vadodara-390023 [Pan : Ahdpr 3553 M] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant Represented By : Shri Jigar Adhyaru, Ca Respondent Represented By: Shri Abhijit, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 19.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 02.03.2026 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

Section 250Section 69A

file of the Assessing Officer for verifying the aforesaid details and adjudicating the issue afresh by passing a reasoned order after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court

Assitant Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun vs. Power Machines, New Delhi

In the result, appeal preferred by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 133/DDN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ansaul Sachar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

appeal to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) wherein the tribunal directed the Assessing Officer (Ld. AO) to decide afresh after providing assessee an opportunity of being heard. The assessee is a foreign company registered under the laws of Russia. It is well experienced and have expertise in the engineering-design

Usha Jain, Sagar vs. Incometax Officr Ward-2, Sagar

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

ITA 169/JAB/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144BSection 147Section 69A

time of hearing, the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer had not granted adequate and proper opportunity of being heard, as only one notice dated 25.07.2023 was issued during the course of assessment proceedings. It was contended that the assessment order was passed without affording

Ramkrishna Arjariya, Chhatarpur vs. Incometax Officer, Chhatarpur

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

ITA 163/JAB/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur27 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Ramkrishan Arjariya, Pwd V. Income Tax Officer Ward Campus Aayakar Bhawan New Nowgong, Chhatarpur (Mp)- Colony Chhatrashal 471001. Chouraha Chhatarpur (Mp) Pan:Alxpa0761A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava, Advocate Respondent By: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. Dr-1 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. DR-1

Assessing Officer (“AO”, for short) with a direction to pass a de novo assessment order in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. (C) At the time of hearing, the Ld. Representatives of both sides submitted that the facts and circumstances of the present

Parasia Lions Sewa Samiti, Chhindwara vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-Exemption, Jabalpur

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 142/JAB/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur27 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 14e(3)

file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo assessment order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee; and after due application of mind, and based on correct facts. I.T.A. No.142/JAB/2024 Assessment Year:2015-16 3 (E) In the result

Shri K.P. Magennavar Laxmi Credit Souharda Sahakari Sangh Ltd.Manjari., Chikodi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nippani

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

ITA 33/PAN/2026[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji27 Feb 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. No.33/Pan/2026 (A.Y. 2015-16 ) Shri K.P.Magennavar Laxmi Vs I.T.O-Ward-1, Credit Souharda Sahakari Nemchand Building, . Sangh Limited, 747,Ashoknagar, 521,Laxmibuilding,Mainroad, Nipani-591237, Manjari, Chikodi, Karnataka. Belagavi-591213, Karnataka. Pan .No. Aabas3175N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Jaykumar Patil.Ar Revenue By Smt.Thamba Mahendra.Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 25.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2026 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of Addl/Jcit(A)-7 Mumbai Passed U/Se 143(3) & U/Sec250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Order Of The Cit(A) Sustaining The Denial Of Claim Of Deduction U/Sec80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Ac & Without Prejudice Alternate Relief U/Sec80P(2)(D) Of The Act On Interest Income From Cooperative Banks & Scheduled Banks. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee Souhard Credit Cooperative Society Is Engaged In Providing

Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

purpose to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification and to adjudicate fresh on merits and the assessing officer shall provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee should also cooperate in submitting the information. And this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bicholim Electricity Employees Co Operative Credit Society Limited, Bicholim vs. Income Tax Officer, Panaji

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

ITA 32/PAN/2026[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji27 Feb 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. No.32/Pan/2026 (A.Y. 2024-25) Bicholim Electricity Employees Vs I T O, Cooperative Credit Society National E Assessment . Limited, Centre, Right Wing, Groundfloor, Delhi. Govt Multipurpose Building, Mapusa-403504, Goa. Pan.No..Aaaab4640G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

officer for afresh adjudication on merits and the 4 ITA. No.32/PAN/2026 Bicholim Electricity Employees Cooperative Credit Society Limited. CIT(A) shall provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee should also cooperate in submitting the information and the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed

Kishor Kumar Arya, Narayanpur vs. ITO, Ward-Jagdalpur, Jagdalpur

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

ITA 113/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.113/Rpr/2026 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2019-20 Kishor Kumar Arya, Jai Mahamaya Petroleum, Village Sulenga, Narayanpur, 494661, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Ahipa5046R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Mr. Yash Jain, CAFor Respondent: None (Petition filed)

matter came up before the ITAT, it had failed to address the infirmity regarding the fact that the assessee was not afforded proper opportunity of being heard and the matter was dismissed ex-parte by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC which amounted to violation of principles of natural justice ... part of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In light of such decision, the petitioner ought to have been granted an opportunity of being heard which, partakes the characteristic of the fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 11. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay