“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

Mahmadhusen Salmanji Gandhi, Jamnagar vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 495/RJT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 495/Rjt/2025 Assessment Year: (2015-16) Mahmadhusen Salmanji Gandhi Vs. Principle Commissioner Of Income C/O, Kadarbhai Hasanbhai Gandhi, Tax Kv Road, Bedi Gate, Jamnagar Office Of The Principle Gujarat 361001 Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jamnagar, Gujarat 361008 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqpg8128H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Ms. Amoli Gusani, Ld. A.R. Respondent By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld. Cit. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/02/2026 आदेश / Order Per Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay)-2015-16, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Pcit Income Tax Vide Order (U/S 263 Of The Act) Dated 04.06.2025. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. The Learned Pcit Has Erred In Law & In Facts By Contending & Directing The Assessing Officer To Conduct A Fresh Assessment Regarding The Brokerage Expenses To The Tune Of Rs. 1,66,121/- 2. The Learned Pcit Has Erred In Law & In Facts By Contending & Directing The Assessing Officer To Conduct A Fresh Assessment Regarding The Claim Of Indexed Cost Of Improvement To The Tune Of Rs. 35,02,298/- 3. The Learned Pcit Has Erred In Law By Invoking The Revision Of The Assessment Order Under Section 263. The Assessment Order Is Not Erroneous As Per Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act & Therefore The Mahmadhusen Salmanji Gandhi

For Appellant: Ms. Amoli Gusani, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld. CIT. DR

Section 147Section 263

proceedings, afresh, before the Ld.Pr.CIT. We direct the Ld. PCIT to pass revision order under section 263 of the Act, after giving sufficient opportunity of being heard, to the legal heirs of the deceased assessee.” In view of the direction issued by the Hon. ITAT, Rajkot, the revision proceedings ... made any submissions on merits of the case. Therefore, vide PCIT’s SCN dated 20/05/2025, the assessee was granted one more opportunity of being heard and requested to submit the reply latest by 27/05/2025 Page 3 of 6 Mahmadhusen Salmanji Gandhi 5. In view of the above, in exercise

Paresh Tea Company Private Limited, Rajkot vs. DCIT, Cir-1(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 840/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 840/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Paresh Tea Company Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Plot No.G/1303, Road-H Gidc Metoda, Circle – 1(1), Opp – Sagar Foundry, Taluko – Lodhika, Rajkot Rajkot – 360035, Gujarat "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcp2527K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. M. Manek, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 144

merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. 5. Considering the above facts, We note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the Ld. CIT(A). We note that the Ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee ... 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. However, on account of non-compliance attitude of the assessee, we impose a cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two hundred

Balaram Giri, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Baripada

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

ITA 696/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Sh. Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 69

remitting this issue back to the file of AO for denovo consideration and decide the issue as per law after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee . The assessee is directed to substantiate his case with cogent documents in support of his claim and not seek unnecessary adjournments

Switchtech Incubator Foundation, Khorda vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 676/CTK/2025[2026-27]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Feb 2026AY 2026-27

Bench: ITAT. The Ld. counsel submitted that merely for non-submission of financial statement should not be taken base for rejecting of the Form 10AB filed by the assessee for registration of the trust u/s 12AB. He requested and undertook that if one more chance be given to the assessee to produce documents as desired by the Ld. CIT(E). the assessee will comply for the documents.4. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied on the order of lower authorities.5. Considering the rival submissions and perusi

For Respondent: Sh. Ashim Kumar Chakraborty

Section 10BSection 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 250

interests of justice, we are remitting this issue back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue as per law. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case with cogent documents in support

Veena Devi, Paliganj vs. CIT(Appeals), Patna

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

ITA 540/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) on 03.05.2024. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) also provided various opportunities to the assessee to rebut the addition made by the AO against the sale of immovable property and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5.

For Respondent: Sh. Manab Adak, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

remitting this issue back to the file of AO for denovo consideration and decide the issue as per law after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate her case with cogent documents in support of her claim and not seek unnecessary adjournments

Satyam Educational and Social Enhancement Trust, Katihar vs. ITO Exemption Ward Bhagalpur, Bhagalpur

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

ITA 529/PAT/2025[25-26]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 12A(1)(vi)

examine the application of the assessee on merits and thereafter pass an order in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after considering the details to be filed as the assessee claims that its activities are genuine and therefore, the approval ought

Arun Kumar, Ludhiana vs. ITO Ward 6(1), Ludhiana

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

ITA 1074/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 115BSection 147Section 148ASection 69A

file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to: examine and verify the additional evidence filed by the assessee,   afford adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, and 5  decide the issue afresh in accordance with law. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Shree Nana Jadra Seva Sahkari Mandli Limited, Bhavnagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1(9), Bhavnagar

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2570/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2570/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shree Nana Jadra Seva Sahkari The Ito बनाम/ Mandli Ltd. Ward-1(9) V/S. At Nana Jadra Village Bhavnagar – 364 001 Mahuva Bhavnagar – 364 290 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaxas 2474 E (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) ()* यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nemish Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Rajenkumar M. Vasavda, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 28/10/2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. The Assessee, In This Appeal, Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Shree Nana Jadra Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd. Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Nemish Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M. Vasavda, Sr.DR

Section 69A

this fact was brought to its notice only when it received physical letter of recovery of demand. c. denying the appellant a reasonable opportunity to be heard on the merits of the case, which violates the principles of natural justice. 3. The appellant submits that there was sufficient and reasonable ... delay was not deliberate 4 The appellant prays that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and a reasonable opportunity to be heard on the merits of the case be given. GROUND III: Non-admission of additional evidence 1. On the facts and in the circumstances

Income Tax Office Ward 3(3) Pune, Pune vs. Ramesh Magaramji Muleva, Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3120/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Manish SomaniFor Respondent: Smt. Shraddha Nichal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 251Section 69

appellant in the grounds of appeal and submissions previously filed. The Assessing Officer is directed to provide the appellant with a renewed opportunity to be heard, in accordance with the law. Therefore, all grounds raised by the appellant are deemed addressed. 7. As a result, the appellant’s appeal ... file of the Ld. AO for de-novo assessment on merits of the case, as per fact and law after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee shall provide the requisite support in terms of submitting the relevant explanation/details/ documentary evidence to substantiate

Walia Agni Industries Private Limited, Pune vs. ITO Ward-10(1), Pune

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

ITA 1534/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Ninad KulkarniFor Respondent: Smt. Shraddha Nichal

Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

That, on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order u/s 250 without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard and thus violating the principles of 'audi alteram partem. 3. That, on facts and in the circumstances of the case ... assessment order passed u/s 144 which is the very foundation of this penalty order being contested is an Ex parte order wherein sufficient opportunity of being heard was not granted to the appellant. 7. That, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case

Jhv Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 2(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed but the order of the Pr

ITA 1289/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 68

enquiry on the issue involved and the Ld. AO was further directed to decide the matter as per law after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. ITA No.: 1289/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 JHV Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. 4. Aggrieved with the order

L Karuppusamy, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore

ITA 224/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1119, 1120 & 1121/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.209 To 213 & 214/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15 & 2016-17

sheet, a copy of the draft assessment order, covering letter filed in the relevant miscellaneous records folder. Even, it is noted that due opportunity of being heard should be given to the assessee by the supervisory officer giving approval to the proposed block assessment, at least one month before

P Kuppuchamy, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore

ITA 223/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1119, 1120 & 1121/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.209 To 213 & 214/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15 & 2016-17 Mr. P. Palanisamy, 390, P.P. Nilayam, 9Th Main I Cross, Hal Ii Stage, Indira Nagar, Bengaluru-560 038. [Pan:Adspp 9150 F] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.219, 220, 221 & 222/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2010-11, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.200, 201 To 208/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2011-12 To 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3388 To 3392/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 M/S. P.P. Financers, 24, Radha Avenue, 3Rd Street, Valsaravakkam, Chennai-600 087. [Pan: Aahfp 0288 L] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.215 To 218 & 223/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2018-19 & 2014-15 Mr. P. Kuppuchamy, No.80/7, 17Th Cross, 16Th Main Road, Btm Layout, Ns Palya, Bangaluru-560 076. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore.

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ’सी’ यायपीठ, चेनई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरी, न्यायिक

P Kuppuchamy, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore

ITA 216/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1119, 1120 & 1121/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.209 To 213 & 214/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15 & 2016-17 Mr. P. Palanisamy, 390, P.P. Nilayam, 9Th Main I Cross, Hal Ii Stage, Indira Nagar, Bengaluru-560 038. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore. [Pan:Adspp 9150 F] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.219, 220, 221 & 222/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2010-11, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.200, 201 To 208/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2011-12 To 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3388 To 3392/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 M/S. P.P. Financers, 24, Radha Avenue, 3Rd Street, Valsaravakkam, Chennai-600 087. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore. [Pan: Aahfp 0288 L] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.215 To 218 & 223/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2018-19 & 2014-15 Mr. P. Kuppuchamy, No.80/7, 17Th Cross, 16Th Main Road, Btm Layout, Ns Palya, Bangaluru-560 076. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore.

M/S. P.P. Financiers, Karur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore

ITA 3389/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

M/S. P.P. Enterprises, Bengaluru vs. ACIT< Central Circle-3, Coimbatore

ITA 3383/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

“opportunity of being heard”

Leading authorities on opportunity of being heard

Judgments citing opportunity of being heard

Mahmadhusen Salmanji Gandhi, Jamnagar vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar

Paresh Tea Company Private Limited, Rajkot vs. DCIT, Cir-1(1), Rajkot

Balaram Giri, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Baripada

Switchtech Incubator Foundation, Khorda vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhubaneswar

Veena Devi, Paliganj vs. CIT(Appeals), Patna

Satyam Educational and Social Enhancement Trust, Katihar vs. ITO Exemption Ward Bhagalpur, Bhagalpur

Arun Kumar, Ludhiana vs. ITO Ward 6(1), Ludhiana

Shree Nana Jadra Seva Sahkari Mandli Limited, Bhavnagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1(9), Bhavnagar

Income Tax Office Ward 3(3) Pune, Pune vs. Ramesh Magaramji Muleva, Pune

Walia Agni Industries Private Limited, Pune vs. ITO Ward-10(1), Pune

Jhv Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 2(2), Kolkata

L Karuppusamy, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore

P Kuppuchamy, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore

P Kuppuchamy, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore

P. Palanisamy, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore

P. Palanisamy, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore

M/S. P.P. Financiers, Karur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore

M/S. P.P. Financiers, Karur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore

M/S. P.P. Financiers, Karur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore

M/S. P.P. Enterprises, Bengaluru vs. ACIT< Central Circle-3, Coimbatore