“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

Elan Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 7, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 763/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

Section 131Section 153CSection 43B

made by the assessing officer, without appreciating the fact that the assessing officer did not provide an opportunity of being heard before making such addition by issuing show cause notice during the course of assessment proceedings, which is gross violation of principle of natural justice. 3. At the very outset

Rajeshvar, Ghaziabad vs. Assessing Officer, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7374/DEL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR

Section 147

file of Learned AO for de novo adjudication in accordance with law. Needless to mention that the assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the Learned AO for expeditious disposal of the set aside assessment proceedings by not taking unwarranted adjournments. Hence

Rajeshvar, Ghaziabad vs. Assessing Officer, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7373/DEL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR

Section 147

Rajeshvar, Ghaziabad vs. Assessing Officer, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7372/DEL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR

Section 147

Masawat Livelihood Foundation, Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), Delhi

In the result, both the Assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4013/DEL/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Mohd. Nawaz, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)(iii)

issues in dispute to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) in both the appeals for its fresh adjudication, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Applicant through his Ld. AR is directed to fully cooperate the Ld. CIT(E) during the proceedings and produce

Masawat Livelihood Foundation, Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions), Delhi

In the result, both the Assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4012/DEL/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Mohd. Nawaz, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)(iii)

Rajiv Parkash Mahna, Darbhanga, Bihar vs. ITO Ward 69(8) Delhi, ITO Ward Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3971/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalasstt. Year : 2012-13 Rajiv Parkash Mahna, Vs. Ito, Ward 69(8), Rajiv Parkash Mahna Security New Delhi Agency, 1St Floor, Above Manglam Tyre House, Lalbagh Bela More, Darbhanga-846004 Bihar (Pan: Aaapm3288Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

issues in dispute to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for its fresh adjudication, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, subject to condition that Assessee should file the challan of Rs. 10,000/- as directed above, before the Ld. CIT(A) during the proceedings

Rajeev Aggarwal, Faridabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1 Faridabad, Faridabad Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1315/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 153ASection 153DSection 69

erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in passing the impugned order without giving adequate opportunity of being heard and in gross violation of principles of natural justice.” 4. Brief facts of the case as per assessment order are as under:- “A search & seizure

Rajeev Aggarwal, Faridabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1 Faridabad, Faridabad Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1314/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 153ASection 153DSection 69

Mrs. Dhoomi Devi, Chamoli vs. ITO, W-1(4)4, Srinagar, Chamoli

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 149/DDN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2022-23] Mrs. Dhoomi Devi Vs Ito C/O-Hotel Udai Palace Near . Ward-1(4)4 Narsingh Temple Srignagar, Chamoli Joshimath Chamoli, Uttarakhand-246174 Uttarakhand-246443 Pan-Adkpd6984B Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Revenue By Shri A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.08.2024 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2021-22/10329482 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 05.03.2024 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is An Individual & The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass For Reason I.E. “Large Investment In Immovable Property As Compared To The Total Income”. The Ao Than Passed The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B On 05.03.2024 At A Total Income Of Inr 2,70,31,224/- As Against The Total Income Declared At Inr 29,45,000/- In The Return Of Income Filed By The Assessee.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54FSection 54F(1)

erred in passing the impugned order violating settled principals of natural justice, i.e. inter alia not providing an opportunity of being heard in person. 3. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred in upholding disallowance of deduction claimed

Sanjay Budhrani HUF, Jabalpur vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengluru

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

ITA 198/JAB/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur13 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(1)

grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in dismissing the appeal of the appellant ex-parte without providing an effective opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 2. That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the action of the Id. DCIT

Vicky Navani, Jabalpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Jabalpur, Ward ))

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

ITA 124/JAB/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 253(3)Section 271Section 271BSection 273BSection 275Section 44A

proceedings for the imposition of penalty shall be passed- (a) unless the assessee has been heard, or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard; (b) after the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which the order of 79 the Joint Commissioner (Appeals

Paramjit Singh, Jabalpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(3), Jabalpur

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

ITA 123/JAB/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur13 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

file of learned CIT(A) with the direction to pass de novo speaking order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. All the grounds of appeal are treated as disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid direction. (E) In the result, the appeal

Shree Maru Kansara Soni Gnati, Anjar vs. ITO Exemption Ward-1 Rajkot, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 789/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 789/Rjt/2025 धििाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Shree Maru Kansara Soni Gnati बनाम Income Tax Officer (Exemption), /Vs. C/O Rajesh K Soni, Shashtri Road, Ward- 1, Rajkot, Anjar, Kutch-360 001(Gujarat) It Office, New Aayakar Bhavan,Vatiaka, Rajkot-360 001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aarts 1920 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Gopi Nath Chaubey, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 274

That, the Ld. AO has wrongly passed the assessment order u/s 144 rws 147 of the I.T. Act 1961 without giving proper opportunity of being heard. 4.That, the Ld. AO has wrongly made addition of Rs.30,23,000/- on account of unexplained money

Venkatanarayana Peetha, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tenali

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

ITA 731/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: the AO, an addition of Rs.12.51 lakhs was made u/s 69A of the Act. While concluding the assessment, the Ld.AO has mentioned that the assessee opened an account in the Corporation Bank, Brundavan Gardens, Guntur only during demonetisation period, which clearly exhibits and deemed that the assessee has accommodated others money to deposit in his bank account in the guise of sources emanated out of agricultural savings of him. It was also mentioned that the vague explanation given with regard

Section 153CSection 69A

derived for the last 15 years and the commission received as real estate agent, besides agricultural income. The assessee pleaded for one more opportunity of being heard before the Ld. CIT(A) to substantiate its case with material evidences. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case ... inclined to remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Ld. CIT(A) to afford an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass order after verification. The assessee is also directed to adhere to the 4 Venkatanarayana Peetha notices issued

Mayank Sahai, Lucknow vs. DCIT/ACIT-3 Luckow-New, Income Tax Department

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

ITA 832/LKW/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Feb 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 147Section 250(6)

file of learned CIT(A) with the direction to pass de novo speaking order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, and ensuring due adherence with provisions of section 250(6) of the I.T. Act. The Ld. Departmental Representative was in agreement with

Hari Krishna Mishra, Basti vs. The Income Tax Officer, Basti

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

ITA 828/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 147Section 271ASection 69A

case of Hari Krishna Mishra vs. ITO. Needless to say, the AO will pass the order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. (C) In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open court

Jeevan Jyoti Vidhya Vikas Samiti, Orai vs. CIT Exemption, Lucknow

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

ITA 657/LKW/2025[A Y 2021-22 To 2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Feb 2026

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Ys. 2021-22 To 2023-24 Jeevan Jyoti Vidhya Vikas Samiti, Vs. Cit (Exemption) Gandhi Market Orai Jalaun, Orai, U.P. Pan: Aabaj2731M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(Exemption) Under Section 12Ab(1)(Ii)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Wherein The Ld. Cit(Exemption) Has Rejected The Application Of The Assessee For Registration Under Section 12A(1)(Ac)(Iii). The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1- 1. That Appellant Could Not Make Compliance Of The Three Notices As Mentioned In Form-10Ad, Because The Same Was Not Served Upon Them. Accordingly, Rejection Of Application For Registration U/S 12A(1)(Ac)(Iii) Of The Act In Form-10Ab Vide Form-10Ad Is Illegal, Against The Law Of Natural Justice & Without Jurisdiction. 2. That The Appellant Reserves Right To Modify And/ Or Add Any Other Ground Or Grounds Of Appeal As The Circumstances Of The Case Might Require Or Justify.” 2. The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Society Filed An Application On 5.04.2022 For Registration Under Section 12A(1)(Ac)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act In Form No. 10Ab. Accordingly, Vide Letter Dated 27.08.2022, Certain Clarifications Were Sought From The Assessee But No Reply Was Filed. A Reminder Notice Was Sent On 3.10.2022 Fixing The Date Of Compliance On 10.10.2022 But The Ld. Cit(E)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for a decision on merits after giving the assessee due opportunity of being heard. We also advise the assessee to remain vigilant and make due compliance of notices issued by the 2 Jeevan Jyoti Vidhya Vikas Samiti A.Ys

Surya Pratap Singh Chauhan, Lucknow vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Lucknow

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

ITA 642/LKW/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2018-19 Surya Pratap Singh Chauhan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 68/422, Gandhi Nagar, Lucknow- 2(1), Lucknow-New 226001 Pan: Awgpc6261P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Smt. Sonal Singh, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Dated 7.07.2025 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee That Were Filed Against The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessment Unit For The A.Y. 2018-19 Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 On 3.03.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. Because The Notice Issued Under Section 148 Has Been Issued By The Jao, Which Is Contrary To The Provisions Of Section 151A Of The Act, The Entire Assessment Framed Is Bad In Law Be Quashed. 02. Because The Notice Under Section 148 Having Been Issued On 23.03.2022, Beyond The Period Of Three Years & The Total Investment In Bit Coin Trading Is Of Rs.9,63,000/-, There Being No Profit On The Same On The Contrary Being Loss, The Entire Reopening Of The Assessment Is Without Proper Verification Of Facts, Based On Wrong Facts The Addition Of Rs.88,55,128/- Made By The Ao & Upheld By The Cit(A) Be Deleted. 03. Because The Cit(A), Nfac, Has Failed To Appreciate The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Has Arbitrarily Upheld The Addition Of Rs.88,55,128/- Under Section 69 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Being Unexplained Investment In Purchase & Sale Of Bitcoins, Which Addition Is Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law, The Addition Made Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sonal Singh, JCIT DR

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69

assessee had undertaken/was involved in huge bitcoin trading in the F.Y. 2017-18 amounting to Rs. 83,78,124/-. Accordingly, after giving due opportunity of being heard under section 148A(b) of the Act, an order under section 148A(d) of the Act was passed on 29.03.2022 and subsequently notice ... reproduced section 148A which lays down the said procedure. Clause b of the said procedure provides that the AO will 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

Arya Education Society, Gurgaon, Haryana vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chandigarh

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

ITA 1381/CHANDI/2025[Not Applicable]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1381/Chd/2025 U./S 12Ab Arya Education Society, The Cit(E), बनाम Dav High School, Chandigarh Khandsa Road, Vs. Gurgaon "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aabta2027N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Baldev Raj & Sh. Maneesh Upnejja, Ca’S (Virtually) राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Manav Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.02.2026 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14.10.2025 Passed By The Ld. Cit, Exemptions, Chandigarh

For Appellant: Sh. Baldev Raj &For Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

Appellant on 14.10.2025 and proceeded to pass the order on the same day, i.e., 14.10.2025, thereby denying the Appellant a fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard 5. All the above-mentioned grounds are independent and without prejudice to others, and the appellant carves the right to add, alter, amend ... reply submitted by the Assessee and proceeded to pass the order on the same day, thereby denying the Assessee a fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, a prayer has been made to remand the matter back to the CIT(E). 4. Per contra, Ld. DR relied