“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

Rajpur Kelvani Mandal Rajpur, Vijaynagar vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

ITA 2651/AHD/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Feb 2026AY 2025-26

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

application for renewal of registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act. The CIT(Exemptions) shall afford a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee, examine the objects of the trust and the genuineness of its activities on the basis of material available on record

NA vs. Arjab Foundation Daisar, Patanvs.the CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2635/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Feb 2026

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 35

instant case, we are of the considered view that the assessee ought to have been afforded a more effective and reasonable opportunity of being heard to place on record the relevant material in support of its claim. 6. We further find force in the submission of the learned counsel ... matter to the file of CIT(Exemptions) for de-novo consideration in accordance with law. The learned CIT(Exemptions) shall afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and examine the application afresh on merits. The assessee shall cooperate in the proceedings and shall file all requisite details

Shri Swaminarayan Siddhant Sajivan Mandal Gavada, Vijapur vs. CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2508/AHD/2025[NOT APPLICABLE]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Feb 2026

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri H V Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT. DR

Section 12A

circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) has not provided reasonable opportunity of being heard as provided under Second Proviso to Section 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) of the Act. Asst. Year : N.A - 2– 3. The Appellant craves

Murali Kannan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-22(1), Tambaram

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

ITA 4127/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 4127/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Shri Murali Kannan, The Income Tax Officer, No.7B-1, Kannappan Street, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward -22(1), Kancheepuram – 631 501. Tambaram Pan: Aftpm 8447H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Aswathy, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. V. Aswathy, JCIT

Section 250

above, the order of FAA is set aside and matter remanded back to his file for fresh adjudication on merits after allowing 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

Akansha Yogesh Deshmukh, Bpcl Staff Colony vs. ITO/DCIT International Taxation Mumbai, Income Tax Building

ITA 8949/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without granting any effective or further opportunity of being heard, in violation of the principles of natural justice and in disregard of the mandate of section

Ramesh Purshottam Modi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Circle 22(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6577/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarramesh Purshottam Ito Circle 22(1) Modi Income Tax 303, Modi House, Linking Vs. Department, Road, Khar West, Piramal Chamber, Mumbai-400 052 Dr. Ss Rao Marg, Parel, Mumbai 0 400 012 Pan/Gir No. Aahpm2793F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ashwani Kumar A/W Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Umashankar Prasad, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 94(7)Section 94(8)

circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in disposing of the appeal without providing an opportunity of being heard through Video Conferencing. The appellant craves leave to add/ alter any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 13. During the course ... this contention. Under the amended scheme, section 148A(b) requires the Assessing Officer to provide the information and material relied upon and give opportunity of being heard. The foundation of reopening must be disclosed at this stage. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Karan Maheshwari (supra) has held that

Shivam Sharma, Haridwar vs. ITO Ward-1(3)(3), Haridwar

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 57/DDN/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shrisanjay Awasthishivam Sharma Vs Ito Hosue No. 28, Braham Vihar Ward-1(3)(3) Colony, Kankhal, Haridwar, Industrial Area, Haridwar, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand Delhi Pan: Dmkps2450B Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Vikas Sandilya, Adv Revenue By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18/02/2026

remand the issues to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the First Appeal afresh in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 5. In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court

Jaspal Singh, Dehradun vs. ITO Ward1(1)(2) Dehradun, Dehradun

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 269/DDN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

initiate fresh penalty proceedings if so required after framing the de-novo assessment. Needless to state that the Assessee shall be provided with opportunity of being heard. 7. In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee in ITA No. 268/DDN/2025 is partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Appeal

Jaspal Singh, Dehradun vs. ITO Ward 1(1)(2), Dehradun

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 268/DDN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

Ajay Pundir, Village Kirsali vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, Delhi

In the result, the Appeals of the Appellant are partly allowed for

ITA 249/DDN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

liberty to initiate fresh penalty proceedings, if required after passing the de-novo assessment order. Needless to say, the A.O. shall provide opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before passing the assessment order in accordance with law. The Assessee is also directed to participate in assessment proceedings without fail

Ajay Pundir, Village Kirsali vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, Delhi

In the result, the Appeals of the Appellant are partly allowed for

ITA 248/DDN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

Shri Shyam Sewa Mandal Samiti, Roorkee vs. CIT Exemption, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the Appellant is partly allowed for

ITA 245/DDN/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Feb 2026AY 2025-26

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Sanjay Awasthishri Shyam Sewa Mandal Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Samiti. Lalkurti Roorkee, Appeals (Exemption), Uttarakhand Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh Pan: Acbas6972M Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Rajiv Sahni, Ca Revenue By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18/02/2026

Section 12A

submitted that the order impugned has been passed in violation of principals of natural justice, the Ld. CIT(E) has not provided the opportunity of being heard to the Appellant, thus sought for allowing the Appeal. 4. Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that the Appellant ... remand the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to decide the applications afresh after providing opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. The Appellant is also at liberty to produce any/all documents in support of its claim. 3 Shri Shyam Sewa Mandal Samiti

Br Associates, Uttarakahand vs. ACIT, Rishikesh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the assessment order is quashed

ITA 175/DDN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2016-17] M/S. B R Associates Vs Acit Jolly Grant, Circle-1(4)(1) Bhaniyawala, Dehradun, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand-248140 Uttarakhand-249201 Pan-Aaqfb6241E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Kanwal K.Juneja, Ca Revenue By Shri A.S.Rana, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.07.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Dehradun/10296/2018-19 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Its Return Of Income On 08.10.2016 Declaring Total Income At Inr 46,02,250/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & The Notice Was Issued By Ito, Ward-1(2), Dehradun Thereafter, The Case Was Transferred To Dcit, Circle-1(1)(1), Dehradun. Thereafter, Various Notices Were Issued & Replies Were Filed By The Assessee. After Considering The Submissions, Total Income Was Assessed At Inr 1,93,96,755/- By Making Addition Of Inr 55.00 Lakhs Towards Bogus Advances & Inr 14,13,600/- As Deemed Income & Further Disallowance Of Expenses Of Inr 78,80,905/- Was Made.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43C

also subordinate to him, then he is under an obligation to record his reasons for doing so after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter wherever it is possible to do so. For the sake of clarity sub-section (1) of Section 127 is culled ... General or] Director General or [Principal Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner or [Principal Commissioner or] commissioner may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, transfer any case from

Shree Badshah Yadav Charitable Trust, Mainpuri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(5), Mainpuri

ITA 607/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 Shree Badshah Yadav Charitable Vs. Income Tax Officer, Trust Campus S. K. Scientific Ward -4(2)(5), Public Inter College Karhal, Mainpuri Manipuri Pan : Aaots3631B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anurag Sinha, Adv. Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order

Section 10Section 115BSection 12ASection 144Section 234BSection 251(1)(a)Section 69A

disposed off on merits, he brought to our notice page 11 of the paper book, written submission and submitted that no effective opportunity of being heard was granted. The adjournment application filed by the assessee were ignored and the order was passed without considering the assessee’s explanation

Mps Family Trust, Agra vs. ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Agra

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

ITA 562/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2020-21 Mps Family Trust Vs. Ito, A-25 New Shahganj, Ward-1, Morena Agra Pan : Aaftm7275G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Anurag Sinha, Adv. Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 69

void ab initio, as it has been passed without affording the appellant a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard. 6. BECAUSE, in the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence placed on record, the 'AO' has grossly erred in making addition of Rs.7,48,400/- as unexplained investment ... back to the file of Ld CIT(A) with the direction to adjudicate afresh the appeal filed by the assessee after giving proper opportunity of being heard. The assessee also directed to file the relevant information and comply to the notices without taking unnecessary adjournments