← All Phrases

“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

Ashish Bhagwan Balpande, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 4(4), Nagpur

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

ITA 567/NAG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Lohiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69

instant appeal to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for afresh adjudication. 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 is also directed

Shri Samarth Sotafir Maharaj Bigar Sheti Gramin Sahakari Pat Sanstha, Teosa vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 5, Amravati

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

ITA 551/NAG/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

issues raised on merits to the file of Ld.JAO for denovo adjudication. Needless to mention that Ld. JAO shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and then decide the issues in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take

Shree Opera Society Jain Swetamber Sangh, Ahmedabad vs. The CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2202/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Feb 2026

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Hemanshu Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

time limits under section 12A(1)(ac) of the Act, and thereafter pass a fresh order in accordance with law after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced in Open Court

Navalmal Firodia Memorial Hospital Trust, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward 1(2), Pune

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

ITA 2460/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: the learned CIT(A), the same has neither been taken note of or distinguished in any manner. Not following the binding Judicial precedent of the Jurisdictional ITAT Pune is gross impropriety in law. Ground No. 2: The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the Grounds of Appeal herein and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either at or before the appeal hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Shrenik GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Manish Sinha (Virtual)
Section 11Section 11(2)(a)Section 11(3)Section 11(3)(c)Section 12ASection 143(1)

deleted. We therefore set aside the order of CIT(Appeals) 16 and remand this issue for fresh consideration by the AO, after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 13. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes." 21. In light

Patton International Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle 7(1), Kolkata

ITA 1045/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 14ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘D' BENCH, KOLKATA Before SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT

Patton International Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle 7(1), Kolkata

ITA 1044/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 14ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘D' BENCH, KOLKATA Before SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT

Gaurav Rajan Ghoota, G-4, Sai Kuteer Apartments, Thanisandra Main Road vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5(3)(2), Hmt Building Bangalore

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

ITA 2186/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Amaranath, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing
Section 144Section 144BSection 147

Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer is directed to consider the additional submissions and documentary evidence filed by the assessee, provide reasonable opportunity of being heard, and pass a speaking order in accordance with law. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ACIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Hoshang Manekji Havewala, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed, and the cross- objection filed by the assessee is disposed of in the above terms

ITA 6211/MUM/2025[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A No.6192/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1999-2000 I.T.A. No.6193/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1997-1998 I.T.A. No.6194/Mum/2025 A.Y. : 2000-01

For Appellant: Shri Akshay ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

contended that no relied-upon documents were ever furnished or shared with the assessee. Consequently, the assessee was denied a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard, in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Ld. AR further invited our attention to the observations recorded

ACIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Hoshang Manekji Havewala, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed, and the cross- objection filed by the assessee is disposed of in the above terms

ITA 6209/MUM/2025[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A No.6192/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1999-2000 I.T.A. No.6193/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1997-1998 I.T.A. No.6194/Mum/2025 A.Y. : 2000-01

For Appellant: Shri Akshay ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

contended that no relied-upon documents were ever furnished or shared with the assessee. Consequently, the assessee was denied a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard, in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Ld. AR further invited our attention to the observations recorded

ACIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Hoshang Manekji Havewala, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed, and the cross- objection filed by the assessee is disposed of in the above terms

ITA 6195/MUM/2025[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A No.6192/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1999-2000 I.T.A. No.6193/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1997-1998 I.T.A. No.6194/Mum/2025 A.Y. : 2000-01

For Appellant: Shri Akshay ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

contended that no relied-upon documents were ever furnished or shared with the assessee. Consequently, the assessee was denied a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard, in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Ld. AR further invited our attention to the observations recorded

ACIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Hoshang Manekji Havewala, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed, and the cross- objection filed by the assessee is disposed of in the above terms

ITA 6194/MUM/2025[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A No.6192/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1999-2000 I.T.A. No.6193/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1997-1998 I.T.A. No.6194/Mum/2025 A.Y. : 2000-01

For Appellant: Shri Akshay ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

contended that no relied-upon documents were ever furnished or shared with the assessee. Consequently, the assessee was denied a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard, in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Ld. AR further invited our attention to the observations recorded

ACIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Hoshang Manekji Havewala, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed, and the cross- objection filed by the assessee is disposed of in the above terms

ITA 6193/MUM/2025[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A No.6192/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1999-2000 I.T.A. No.6193/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1997-1998 I.T.A. No.6194/Mum/2025 A.Y. : 2000-01

For Appellant: Shri Akshay ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

contended that no relied-upon documents were ever furnished or shared with the assessee. Consequently, the assessee was denied a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard, in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Ld. AR further invited our attention to the observations recorded

ACIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Hoshang Manekji Havewala, Mumbai

ITA 6192/MUM/2025[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH

Ekesh Gaurang Desai, Mumbai vs. Central Circle - 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 6116/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarekesh Gaurang Desai Vs Acit Central Circle -1(1), Mumbai C-46, Pandurang Chs, A.B. 321, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Nair Road Near Juhu Post Mumbai 400020 Office, Juhu Mumbai-400049 Pan:Aibpd4569L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Dharangandhi, Adv & Ms. Vinita Nara Adv Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Misra (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing : 29/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/02/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (Jm): The Instant Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-47, Mumbai [For Brevity ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’], Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (For Brevity ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2011-12, Date Of Order 28.07.2025. The Impugned Order Emanated From The Order Of The Ld. Income-Tax Officer Ward-22(1)(2), Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri DharanGandhi, Adv & Ms. Vinita Nara AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

verification. The Ld. AO is directed to examine the assessee’s claim in accordance with law after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 11. Accordingly, the ground no.1 and 2 are allowed, ground no.3 stands dismissed. And ground no.4 and 5 are consequential in nature and dismissed

Kang Agri Farm, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(3), Jalandhar

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

ITA 397/ASR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Sh. Nirmal Mahajan, C. A
Section 144Section 249(2)Section 250

grounds of appeal contained in Form No. 35 is to be adjudicated on merits. 10. The assessee shall be allowed reasonable and proper opportunity of being heard and we direct the assesse to file all documentary evidences and submissions in support of its contention and to fully co-operate

Rajinder Singh M/S Rajinder Singh and Sons Tehsil Makhanpur Bsinah Jammu, Jammu vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2) Jammu Aayakar Bhawan Rail Head Complex Panama Chowk Jammu, Jammu

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

ITA 263/ASR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 263/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rajinder Singh, M/S Rajinder Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2), Singh & Sons, Tehsil Jammu & Kashmir. Makhanpur, Bishnah, Jammu. [Pan:-Bdups0545L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250

back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the all the grounds contained in Form 35 on merits after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard and we direct the assessee to furnish all documentary evidence and submission in support of his contention and to fully cooperate in appellate

Jasdev Singh, Bathinda vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Btd, Bathinda

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

ITA 662/ASR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 662/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jasdev Singh, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(1), Gobindpura, Bathinda. Bathinda. [Pan:-Bzyps0363N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv & Sh. V.S. Appellant By Aggarwal, Itp Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 250

back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the all the grounds contained in Form 35 on merits after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard and we direct the assessee to furnish all documentary evidence and submission in support of his contention and to fully cooperate in appellate

Rituraj Steel Private Limited, Bilaspur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1), Bilaspur

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

ITA 697/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 697/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18) Rituraj Steel Private Limited, M/S Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Rituraj Steel Private Limited, Hotel Tax, Circle 2(1), Bilaspur, East Park Agrasen Chowk, Shri Ram Plaza Vapar Vihar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, 495001 Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, 495001 Pan: Aaccr7589J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None (Petition Filed) राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 09/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2017-18 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.10.2025 Of The Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mysore [‘Addl. Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).

For Appellant: None (Petition filed)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

file of the Ld. Addl. CIT(A) for deciding this issue afresh/denovo, in view of the observations in foregoing paras, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant assessee. Ordered accordingly. The appellant assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in remitted appellate proceedings. 8. In the result, the appeal

Aftab Siddique, Raipur vs. DCIT-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 633/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 633/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19) Aftab Siddique, Near Sunni Maszid, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Nayapara, Tatyapara, Raipur, Tax, Circle-1(1), Aaykar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Pan: Ajgps3624K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None (Petition Filed) राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 09/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2018-19 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.08.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).

For Appellant: None (Petition filed)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 68

matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the case afresh/denovo, in accordance with the law, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant assessee. Ordered accordingly. The appellant assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in remitted appellate proceedings. 7. In the result, this appeal

Vishal Majabbhai Chauhan, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2)(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 545/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.545/Rjt/2025 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Vishal Majabbhai Chauhan, Vs. The Ito, C/O Sarda & Sarda (Ca), Sarkar Ward – 1(3)(2), 1St Floor, Dr. Radha-Krishna Surat Road, Opp - Rajkumar College, Rajkot - 360001, Gujarat "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bgqpc9162A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 250(6)

note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, we restore the matter ... back to the file of Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed ITA.545/RJT/2025/AY.2018-19 Vishal Majabbhai Chauhan to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, we deem it fit and proper