“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

Amarjeet Kaur, Dehradun vs. ITO, Rudrapur

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

ITA 191/DDN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun20 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.191/Ddn/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Amarjeet Kaur, Assessment Unit, C/O Matta Garg & Co., Vs. National Faceless Assessment Chartered Accountants, 15, Astley Hall Centre, Income Tax Office, Dehradun 248001. Rudrapur, Pan No.Bzypk0471M Uttarakhand. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250Section 69

full and correct disclosure before the Ld. AO, and submit all manner of documents in her defense. The Ld. AO would give adequate opportunity of being heard and thereafter, examine the evidence before him and arrive at an appropriate conclusion. 5. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

Ranjana Devi, Maur Mandi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Bathinda

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

ITA 410/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 410/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ranjana Devi, C/O Jishu Trading Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Co. Maur Mandi, Punjab. Bathinda. [Pan:-Alzpd4607L] (Appellant) (Respondent) None. Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr.

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 69A

Income Tax (Appeals) is against law and facts on the file in as much as in not allowing the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 3. That the Learned. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi is against law and facts on the file

Bharat Kumar Agrawal, Raipur vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Raipur

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are

ITA 110/RPR/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.110/Rpr/2026 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2022-23 Bharat Kumar Agrawal Opp. Om Hospital, Purani Basti, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Acjpa4289L ........अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ......प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prafulla Pendse, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 20.03.2026 2 Bharat Kumar Agrawal Vs. Ito, Ward-4(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Prafulla Pendse, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 250

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 ... Bharat Kumar Agrawal Vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.110/RPR/2026 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

S.S. Industries, Raipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Raipur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 817/RPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 816 & 817/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) S.S. Industries, Plot No.610, 611, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income- 620, 621, Urla Industrial Area, Village- Tax, Central Circle 1, Raipur, Central Accholi, Distt.-Raipur, C.G.-492003 Revenue Building, Raipur, C. G. Pan: Aclfs9015L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None. राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Raghunath, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 20/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Raghunath, CIT-DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250Section 250(6)Section 69C

dismissal of both appeals. The Ld. CIT-DR drew our attention to various paras of orders of the Authorities below, submitted that reasonable opportunities of being heard had been provided to the appellant assessee by the Authorities below; Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A). However, the assessee tactfully avoided ... matters back to the files of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding both cases afresh/denovo, in accordance with the law, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We order accordingly. Needless to say that the appellant assessee will cooperate in remitted appellate proceedings in both cases

S.S. Industries, Raipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Raipur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 816/RPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Raghunath, CIT-DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250Section 250(6)Section 69C

Vijay Kothari, Indore vs. DCIT (Central)-1, Indore

ITA 267/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 250

thereafter adjudicating the claim of the assessee afresh in accordance with law and judicial decisions. Needless to mention, the AO shall afford adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee shall also be at liberty to place on record such further evidences as may be considered necessary

Prajyoth Kumar Adi, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 2078/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 270A

readjudicate the appeal afresh. Needless to say, the CIT(A) shall in the course of the set aside proceedings afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 17. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations. ITA No.2078/Hyd/2025

Prajyoth Kumar Adi, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 2077/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: us: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Id. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law, and is passed in gross violations of principles of natural justice.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 270A

Narayan Barter Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2572/KOL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

hereby set aside and the issue is remanded to the Ld. AO for making the reassessment afresh after granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall furnish the details of the year in which the investments were purchased, the complete details of sale of these investments

Manoj Rajaram Sharma, Thane vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8313/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarmanoj Rajaram Ito - 42(3)(4), Sharma, Mumbai Office No. 615, 6Th Vs. Kautilya Bhawan, C- Floor, Centura Square 41-43, Avenue 3, Near It Park, Sg Barve Videsh Bhavan, G Road, Thane, Block, Bkc, Mumbai Maharashtra-400 604. – 400 051. Pan/Gir No. Bytps1944K (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Suryadev Yadav, Shri Karan Hariya & Shri Prashant Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2026

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 4Section 44A

Appellant had no knowledge of the proceedings, and such electronic service cannot be considered valid. This lapse denied the Appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard, rendering the order under Section 250 invalid. Once the Appellant received the first physical notice by speed post, a prompt response was submitted

Mahesh Prakash Bende, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Circle 27(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 8028/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarmahesh Prakash Ito Circle - 27(2), Bende 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, 302, 3Rd Floor, Prithvi Vs. It Office, Vashi Park, Sector-30, Vashi Railway Station Navi Mumbai-400 075 Building, Navi Mubmai – 400 703 Pan/Gir No. Alnpb2531M (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Devendra Jain, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2026

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 249Section 249(3)Section 250

matter to his file with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 15. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case or on the legal

Neeraj, Faridabad vs. Pr, CIT, Faridabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 939/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263Section 44ASection 68Section 69A

discussed in Para 5 above. The AO is directed to make a judicious and logical order as per law after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee.” 5. Against the above order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused

Neeraj, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Faridabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 938/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263Section 44ASection 68Section 69A

Hamdard Laboratories Inida, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle(E) 1(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8826/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2023-24] Hamdard Laboratories India, Dcit, Circle(Exempt), Hamdard Building, 2A/3, Asaf Civic Centre, New Delhi Ali Road, New Delhi-110002 Vs Pan-Aaath0842H Appellant Respondent Appellant/Assessee By Shri S.R Mehta, Ca Respondent/Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Date Of Hearing 19.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2026 Order Per Amitabh Shukla, Am

Section 10Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

impugned addition, concurring with the argument of the assessee that no adjustment/addition by CPC was maintainable under section 143(1) unless an opportunity of being heard was given. It was submitted that the assessee was not given any opportunity of being heard by the CPC before making the impugned addition ... First Appellate Authority had concluded the assessee’s appeal in its favour on the issue of additions u/s 143(1) without an opportunity of being heard, there was no need to have given directions for consideration of provisions of section 10(23C)(iv) of the Act in its case

Satish Chandra Tyagi, Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8770/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2019-20] Satish Chandra Tyagi, Commissioner Of Income Tax A-601, Lakevie Apptt. Plot (Appeals), Hans Bhawan, No.17, Paschim Vihar, Vs Wing,-2, I. P. Estate, Sunder Vihar West, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110087 Pan-Abgpt2521E Appellant Respondent Appellant/Assessee By Shri Satish Chandra Tyagi, Assessee In Person. Respondent/Revenue By Shri Ravi Kant Chaudhary, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2026 Order Per Amitabh Shukla, Am

Section 10Section 154

thereby that there was enhancement in the income amounting 1188620.00 Thix Rs by Rs.397700.00 and assessing total income at made without providing any opportunity of being heard as it appears that this addition was made by treating the employee as non- government employee although no specific reasons has been informed ... correct proposition as per principal of natural justice it becomes mandatory on the part of assessing officer to provide the opportunity of being heard however factually employer of the appellant is govt therefore he is entitle for deduction of Rs 697000.00. 4. Kindly stay the demand. As disallowance has been

Manpreet Arora, Shakti Nagar Delhi vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 13(1), Income Tax Office

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

ITA 6639/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumara.Yr. : 2020-21 Manpreet Arora, Vs. Dcit, Circle 13(1), 19/21, Shakti Nagar, New Delhi Delhi – 110 007 (Pan: Aeipa3611B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Mansi Jain, Adv. & Sh. TanishqFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

time of hearing Ld. AR submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has passed an exparte order without granting the assessee a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard. It was further submitted that Ld. CIT(A) fixed the multiple hearing dates at the very short intervals and issued short notice communications ... proper to remit back the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, in accordance with law. We hold and direct accordingly. Assessee through his Ld. AR is also directed to fully cooperate with

Swift Impex Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-27, New Delhi

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4924/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Lalchandani, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT(DR)

Section 153CSection 153DSection 3

docketed in the order-sheet and a copy of the draft order and covering letter filed in the relevant miscellaneous records folder. Due opportunity of being heard should be given to the assessee by the supervisory officer giving approval t the proposed block assessment, at least one month before

Swift Impex Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-27, New Delhi

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4922/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Lalchandani, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT(DR)

Section 153CSection 153DSection 3

Swift Impex Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-27, New Delhi

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4919/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Lalchandani, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT(DR)

Section 153CSection 153DSection 3

Deepanshu Srivastava, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Ghaziabad

ITA 4064/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144B

without doubting the Sales made by the Appellant, and the CIT(A) has erred in upholding the same. 10. That the no reasonable opportunity of being heard was provided to the Appellant by the lower authorities, i.e., AO/CIT(A). Hence, the orders passed by the lower authorities are in gross ... seen that, the grounds no.-1 to 8 are either incorrect or untenable as the AO -as provided adequate opportunity to be heard to the appellant and then gone ahead with a reasoned order. The appellant failed to furnish such necessary documents, evidence and satisfactory submissions before the AO during