“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

Ramesh Chandra Nayak, Rourkela vs. ACIT, Rourkela

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

ITA 563/CTK/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaramesh Chandra Nayak, A.C.I.T., Nabakrushna Nagar, Rourkela, Circle-Rourkela, Vs. Rourkela-769016 (Odisha). Rourkela. Pan No. Abfpn 5693 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

justice, we restore the issues in the appeal to the file of ld. Jurisdictional AO for adjudicating afresh 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

Sabiruddin Ahammad, Khordha vs. Principal Commssioner of Income Tax, Bhubaneswar-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 193/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Sarangi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Asim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263

which governs the issue in hand, which is quoted herein below:- Section 148A(b) of the I.T. Act. "148A (b) provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, by serving upon him a notice to show cause within such time, as may be specified in the notice, being

Balaji Educational Welfare Society, Lucknow vs. Assessing Officer, CPC, Lucknow

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

ITA 712/LKW/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Balaji Educational Welfare V. Assessing Officer, Cpc Society Lucknow-226001. Balaji Public School Near Railway Station Nawabganj, Barabanki-225001. Pan:Aacab8487H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sharad Srivastava, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sharad Srivastava, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154

justice. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in passing the order without giving adequate opportunity of being heard. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in passing the order without considering the exemption ... accordance with law after examining the merits of the assessee’s claim u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act and after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Assessing Officer is directed to allow the assessee’s claim for exempted income; if the assessee meets the eligibility

Dinesh Chand Jain, Kanpur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 692/LKW/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Dinesh Chand Jain, Vs. Dy. Cit, 7/189, Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur- Central Circle-1, Kanpur 280002, U.P. Pan: Adbpj2732Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Add Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 28.04.2016. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1.1 Because The Id. "Cit(A)" Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Withdrawing The Refund Of Interest Amounting To Rs. 8,20,163/-, Paid To The Assessee U/S 244A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 On Excess Amount Of Self-Assessment Tax Paid U/S 140A Of The Act. 1.2 Because The View Taken By Id. "Cit(A)" While Upholding The Action Of The Assessing Officer Is Based On Misinterpretation Of The Provisions Of Clause (B) Of Sub-Section (1) Of Section 244A Of The Act, As Applicable At The Relevant Point Of Time. 2. Because, In Any Case & Without Prejudice To The Grounds Hereinfore, While Upholding The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Withdrawing The Interest Paid To The Assessee U/S 244A Of The Act, The Ld. "Cit(A)" Failed To Appreciate That The Issue Of Payment Of Interest On Excess Amount Paid U/S 140A Was Debatable In Nature & It Could Not Have Been Decided By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 154 Of The Act As The Same Did Not Constitute A Mistake Apparent From The Record.

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Add CIT DR

Section 140ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 240Section 244Section 244ASection 244A(1)(a)Section 244A(1)(b)

unless the authority concerned has given notice to the assessee of its intention so to do and has allowed the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (4)Where an amendment is made under this section, an order shall be passed in writing by the income-tax authority concerned

Charotar Bhal Rize Foundation, Ahmedabad vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 704/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iv)

file for de-novo consideration. The learned CIT(Exemptions) shall examine the issue afresh in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall demonstrate, by placing necessary documents on record, the purpose for which the Government grants were received, whether

Charotar Bhal Rize Foundation, Anand vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 703/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iv)

Vimarsh Prakashbhai Vasavada, Vadodara, Gujarat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2)(2), Vadodara, Gujarat

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes subject to payment of cost

ITA 2653/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 234BSection 234CSection 271ASection 54FSection 69A

valid service of notice. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in passing the order without granting proper opportunity of being heard. Vimarsh Prakashbhai Vasavada vs. ITO Asst. Year –2020-21 - 2– Addition u/s 69A – Unexplained Money – Rs. 25,12,46,239 4. The learned ... facts and examination of documentary evidence. In the interest of justice, these issues ought to be adjudicated on merits after granting another opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 16. Accordingly, while taking note of the evident non-compliance on the part of the assessee as recorded

Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Exemp, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2616/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 234ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69

totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the assessee deserves one final opportunity of being heard on merits. It is an undisputed fact that the assessment for the year under consideration was framed ex parte under section 147 read with sections ... Company v. CIT [(2001) 249 ITR 216 (SC)], wherein it was held that when an assessee has not been afforded a proper opportunity of being heard, the matter should be restored for fresh adjudication, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned assessment order as well as the order

Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Exemp, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2615/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 234ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69

Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Exemp, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2614/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 234ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69

Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Exemp, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2613/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 234ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69

Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Exemp, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2612/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 234ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69

The Orchid Harmony Co Operative Housing Service Society Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1260/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)

township maintenance expenses of Rs. 20,24,221/-, 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law in not granting an opportunity of being heard through video conferencing despite specific request was made in this regard. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, or withdraw

The Orchid Harmony Co Operative Housing Service Society Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1259/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)

Pramod Ramavatar Poddar, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Central Circle, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed of as directed above

ITA 174/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.174/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Pramod Ramavatar Poddar The Pr. Cit, Central Circle बनाम/ 203, Pinnacle Business Prk Ahmedabad – 380 009 V/S. Corporate Road Prahladnagar Ahmedabad – 380 015 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abrpp 6193 R (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri R.P. Rastogi, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pr.Cit’] Dated 30/03/2021 Passed In Exercise Of His Revision Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short] For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015- 16. Pramod Ramavatar Poddar Vs. Pr.Cit Asst.Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

disallow deduction claimed as purchase cost for an amount of Rs. 20,84,134/- u/s 115BBE(2) of the Act after providing proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. So far as the contention of the assessee that the issue relating to claim of bogus LTCG was pending before

Sunil Subhash Shelar, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Nashik

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

ITA 3203/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Shahakar, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 44A

pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Act. Needless to mention that Ld.CIT(A) shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and 4 ITA.No.3203/PUN./2025 (Sunil Subhash Shelar) then decide the issues in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed

Suchit Dilip Mane, Sangali vs. ITO Ward-1, Sangali

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

ITA 2601/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Shahakar, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of Ld. CIT(A). Needless to mention that Ld.CIT(A) shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and then decide the issues in accordance with law as contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Act. The assessee

Jermels Accademy, Siliguri vs. I.T.O., Ward-2(2), Exemption, Siliguri

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

ITA 2723/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A). The Ld. Ar Submitted That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Not Condoned The Delay & Dismissed The Appeal In Limine Without Deciding The Issues On Merit. The Ld. Ar Therefore, Prayed That 2 Jermel’S Accademy The Delay May Be Condoned As The Reasons Attributable To The Late Filing Of Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Are Genuine & Bonafide & The Appeal May Be Restored To The File Of Ld. Cit(A) For Fresh Adjudication. The Ld. Dr On The Other Hand, Strongly Opposed The Contentions Of The Ld. Ar.

Section 250

Consequently, we restore the issue to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the same after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 17.02.2026 (Pradip Kumar

DCIT, Central Cir-1(4), Kolkata vs. Parvati Resources Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1676/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 264Section 68

High Court dated 28.06.2021 proceeding were again initiated by the PCIT, Kolkata during that the assessee was allowed an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Finally, the Ld. PCIT upheld the order of AO in respect of addition made of Rs. 1,85,00,000/- qua the assessee could

Shamima Haseenathul, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-7(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3021/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Manu Kumar Giri

For Appellant: Mr. G. Baskar, Advocate

Section 115BSection 54ESection 54FSection 68

obtain a remand report from the Assessing Officer, if considered necessary, and pass a speaking order in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. ITA 3021 Chny 2025 A Y 2017-18 Shamima Haseenathul Vs DCIT NCC 7(1) :: 8 :: 7. We make