“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

Kempaiah Nagaraj, Bangalore vs. NA

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

ITA 2651/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 194ISection 54F

prior approval of the specified authority before issuing any notice u/s. 148. Section 148(b) mandates that the AO has to grant an opportunity of being heard to the assessee by serving a notice to show cause within such time, being not less than 7 days but not exceeding ... expires. 9. As seen from the scheme of the section, the AO has to first conduct an enquiry and thereafter provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee by giving not less than 7days time. In the present case, as seen from the copy of the notice dated 18/03/2023

Nitin Gupta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 7991/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethnitin Gupta Vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)(4) 47/47, Balkrishna Niwas, Piramal Chamber, 2Nd Panjarapole Lane, Mumbai - 4000011 Mumbai – 400011. Pan/Gir No: Aafpg6744C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Khushali Desai Respondent By Shri V. Vinod Kumar (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing 26.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2026 O R D E R Per Bijyananda Pruseth, Am:

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

order of CIT(A) is set aside and he is directed to decide the appeal on merit after granting adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to be vigilant and submit explanation and details as may be required by the CIT(A). Accordingly

Bhavin Mahendra Khatri, C-30, Ambaji Apartment Priyamohan Chs, Devidayalc vs. Income Tax Officer, Kautiliya Bhavan

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

ITA 7247/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () And

Section 133(6)

verify if the corresponding income was indeed offered to tax in that year, and (iii) Allow the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to produce necessary third-party evidence or certificates from the deductors and then decide the issue in accordance with law. Accordingly the ground

Vimala Jayantilal Purohit, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Circle 17(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7063/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32

delay and decide the appeal on merit 6 ITA No. 7063/MUM/2025 (AY 2023-24) Vimala Jayantilal Purohit after granting adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The appellant is directed to file submission in details in support of the grounds raised by him by not seeking adjournment

Aegis Limited (Earlier Know As Aegis Bps Service Limited ), Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 6(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6964/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 148

order is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, subject to the condition that the assessee shall deposit cost of ₹11,000/- under the head “Other Receipts

Akshaj Enterprises LLP, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 17(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result Assessee’s Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6885/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Mokhsa Mehta, Ld. AR (virtual)For Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. SR. DR

Section 250

quashed and case is remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision on merits, suffice to say by affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 7. In the result Assessee’s Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court

Nimish Vivek Juvekar, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 20(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6829/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Afaqui, SR. AR

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151A

sufficient opportunity for the appellant to explain his case with documentary evidences in his possession. Needless to say, the AO shall provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant in accordance with the principles of natural justice. He will, under power conferred upon him in accordance with the provisions

Shree Jain Swetamber Terapanthi Manav Hitkari Sangh, Pali vs. ITO, Ward, Exemption, Jodhpur

In the result this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 826/JODH/2024[2024-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Feb 2026AY 2024-15

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Bleshree Jain Swetamber Terapanthi Ddit, Cpc, Manav Hitkari Sangh Bangaluru C/O Rajendra Jain Advocate, 106, Akshay Deep Complex, 5Th B Road, Sadarpura, Jodhpur Pan No. Aaabs2490J Assessee By Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain, Advocate (Physical) Revenue By Shri P.R. Mirdha, Addl. Cit (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 18.02.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 26.02 .2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Addl/Jcit(A) Prayagraj [Hereinafter Referred To As The Jcit (A)] Dated 03.09.2024 With Respect To Assessment Year 2014-15 Challenging Therein Sustaining The Assessed Income Of Rs. 32,61,973/- Without Considering Merits Of The Case.

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 250

against the receipts of income shown in the return of income after due verification as per provisions of law and after granting proper opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. No doubt, Assessee shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the JAO. 4 8. Accordingly the matter is restored

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bhilwara, Shastri Nagar vs. Dhikola Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Dhikola, Shahpura

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 571/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Bleincome Tax Officer, Ward – 1 Dhikola Gram Sewa Sahkari Bhilwara Samiti Ltd. Kawa Kheda Chouraha, Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara - 311001 Assessee By Shri Sunil Porwal, Ca (Virtual) Shri P.R. Mirdha, Addl. Cit-Dr (Virtual) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 18.02.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.:

Section 80P

that one letter was issued by the CIT(A) to the AO to appear before him but the AO did not avail the opportunity. 4. Having heard both the sides and perusal of material on record, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has granted relief based ... appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of the AO to pass an assessment order de novo after granting an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and considering all the material evidences filed before the Ld. CIT(A) during the course of appellate proceedings

Vinay Mittal, Sriganganagar vs. ITO, Ward-1, Sriganganagar

The appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 382/JODH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blevinay Mittal Income Tax Officer, 3, J Block, Sriganganagar (Raj.) Ward No. -1, Ward No. 1 Keshrisinghpur Sriganganagar Sriganganagar Pan No. Avopm6894P Assessee By Shri Virendra Jain, Advocate (Physical) Revenue By Shri P.M. Mirdha, Addl. Cit- Dr (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The Nfac/ Cit (A)] Dated 22.03.2024 With Respect To Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Assessee Has Taken Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 145Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 280Section 44ASection 68

under Rule 29 of ITAT Act as admitted on record, we are of the considered view that the Assessee appellant deserves one more opportunity of being heard to be granted to the Assessee by the AO in view of the principles of natural justice. 23. Accordingly we send back ... file of the AO to decide the issue of examination and verification of unsecured loans and interest expenses claimed afresh after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the Assessee and considering the written submissions may be filed by the Assessee during the fresh assessment proceedings. 11 At the same

Shree Nath Kripa Foods Private Limited, Riico Industrial Area, Nokha vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO, Ward, Nokha

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

ITA 198/JODH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Bleshree Nath Kripa Foods Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ito, Ward F-41 & F-42, Riico Industrial Bikaner Area, Nokha, Bikaner - 334803 Pan No. Aamcs 9124 Q Assessee By Shri Amit Kothari, Ca (Physical) Revenue By Shri Lalit Kumar Bishnoi, Addl. Cit-Dr (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As Nfac/ Cit(A)] Dated 30.01.2024 With Respect To Assessment Year 2016-17 Challenging Therein The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Ex-Parte In Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice.

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144cSection 92CSection 92E

even made any reference to the facts to decide the appeal on merits of the case by way of granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5 Asst. Year: 2016-17 6. In our view, the rejection of appeal by the ld. CIT(A) merely stating that ... parte in gross violation of principles of natural justice. 7. In view of the principle of natural justice, the assessee deserves one more opportunity of being heard before the Assessing Officer to make fresh submissions along with documentary evidences in support of its claim. The AO directed to grant adequate

Varinder Singh Gosal, Jalandhar vs. ITO Ward - 4(2) Jalandhar, Jalandhar

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

ITA 427/ASR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: None (Adjournment application)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 282Section 69

fresh assessment after considering the fresh evidences now filed before the Tribunal and to complete the assessment as per procedure, after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee is also directed to file the fresh evidence before the AO and to fully co-operate

Srhi Sajid Bashir Khan, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Srinagar

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

ITA 623/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 623/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sh. Sajid Bashir Khan, Vs. Ito, Ward -1, Iqbalabad Bemina Srinagar Srinagar. Jammu & Kashmir. [Pan:-Bxxpk6247E] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None (Adjournment Application) Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

Section 147Section 148Section 250

fully cooperate in appellate proceedings. I.T.A. No. 623/Asr/2024 4 Assessment Year: 2016-17 11. The assessee will be allowed reasonable opportunity of being heard with notice to be issued in email cabashir@gmail.com 12. We have not expressed any opinion on merits. 13. In the result the appeal of the assessee

Gurjant Singh, Part Valtoha Patti vs. ITO Ward 1 Tarn Taran, ITO Ward Tarn Taran

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

ITA 615/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia, C. A

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

main grievance of the assessee is against the passing of ex-party order by the ld. CIT(A) without affording proper opportunity of being heard. 3. Brief facts emerging from the records are that the assessee has claimed to be an agriculturist and has deposited cash of an amount ... fresh assessment proceedings. 5 I.T.A. Nos. 614 & 615/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 11. The assessee will be allowed a proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard. 12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. I.T.A. No. 615/Asr/2024: 13. This appeal is filed

Gurjant Singh, Valtoha Patti Tarn Taran vs. ITO Ward 1 Tarn Taran, ITO Ward Tarn Taran

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

ITA 614/ASR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia, C. A

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

Aamina Charitable Trust, Pulwama vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chandigarh

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

ITA 231/ASR/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Farhan Showkat Peer, C. A

Section 12A(1)(ac)

fully co-operate in the registration process and the assessee may be allowed a proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard. 5 I.T.A. No. 231/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2023-24 8.1 We have not expressed any opinion on merits of the case. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Unteswar Singh, Meghalaya vs. Central Circle-2, Guwahati, Assam

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 377/GTY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati26 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250

fair play that another ITA No(s). 375, 376 & 377/GTY/2025 Assessment Year(s) 2013-14, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Unteshwar Singh/ Unteswar Singh. opportunity of being heard may be provided to the assessee so that the assessee can explain the transactions properly and therefore, we hereby set aside the order ... appeal taken by the assessee on merits by passing a speaking order. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission it wants to make in support of its grounds of appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments and rule

Unteswar Singh, Nongpoh vs. Central Circle-2, Guwahati

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 376/GTY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250

Unteshwar Singh, Meghalaya vs. Central Circle-2, Guwahati, Aayakar Bhawan, Christianbasti

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Assessee are partly

ITA 375/GTY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati26 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250

examining the facts of the case and the law, we deem it appropriate in the interest of justice and fair play that another opportunity of being heard may be provided to the assessee so that the assessee can explain the transactions properly and therefore, we hereby set aside the order ... appeal taken by the assessee on merits by passing a speaking order. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission it wants to make in support of its grounds of appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments and rule

Sangita Kamilya, J S Market, Dhenkanal vs. ITO, Ward, Dhenkanal

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

ITA 84/CTK/2026[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasmt Sangita Kamilya, Prop. Kalinga Income Tax Officer, Ward, Jewellery, J.S.Market, Dhenkanal- Dhenkanal Vs. 759001 Pan No.Adkpk 5184 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

justice, we restore the issues in the appeal to the file of ld. jurisdictional AO for denovo assessment after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. However, looking to the non-cooperation of the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings even after issuance of notices to the assessee