“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

Mr. Ramesh Prabhakar Patil, Solapur vs. ITO Ward 2, Pandharpur

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

ITA 906/PUN/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhorFor Respondent: Shri Harish Bist (Through Virtual)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

matter back to his file for denovo adjudication and pass speaking order on merits as per fact and law after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. Needless to say, the assessee shall provide the requisite support in terms of submitting the relevant documents/evidence as may be required/called

Raisoni Bagrecha Diamonds Private Limited, Jalgaon vs. Pne-C-(25)(1), Circle 1, Jalgaon

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

ITA 2549/PUN/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1971/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2015-16 R.B. Diamond House, Pne-C-1, Range-25, Opposite Manohar Sarees Circle-1, Jalgaon Baliram Peth, Jalgaon- Vs. 425001 Maharashtra Pan-Aaifr9130Q अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2549/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Raisoni Bagrecha Diamonds Pne-C-(25)(1), Circle- Private Limited, 1, Jalgaon 288, Baliram Peth, Jalgaon- Vs. 425001 Maharashtra Pan-Aadcr7439N अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By: Shri Sanjay T. Tupe Department By: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing: 28-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 30-01-2026 आदेश / Order Per Dr. Manish Borad:- The Captioned Appeals By Two Different Assessee’S Are Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Dated 10.06.2025 & 14.08.2025 Pertaining To A.Y.

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay T. TupeFor Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 272A(1)(d)

outset Ld. Counsel for both the assessee’s in the instant appeal submitted that assessee’s failed to get proper opportunity of being heard by Ld. CIT(A) and therefore humbly prayed for affording one more opportunity of appearing before Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication for the issues raised

Savita Kamlakar Birajdar, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Latur

ITA 2190/PUN/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A VazeFor Respondent: Shri Harish Bist (Through Virtual)

Section 144Section 147Section 69

following grounds of appeal :- “1. The Ld. AO erred in law and on facts in completing assessment u/s 144 without affording adequate opportunity of being heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 2. The Ld. AO erred in treating the entire investment of 31,00,000/- as unexplained investment

Yogesh Jagannath Satav, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-12(4), Pune

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

ITA 2022/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2022/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Yogesh Jagannath Satav, The Income Tax Officer, Fadai Chowk, Nagar Road, Ward – 12(4), Pune Wagholi, Taluka-Haveli, Vs. Pune-412207 Pan : Bbtps3761B अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Digambar Surwase Department By : Shri Manish Mehta Date Of Hearing : 20-01-2026 Date Of 28-01-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.06.2025 Of The Ld. Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chennai [“Addl./Jcit(A)”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) (National Faceless Assessment Centre) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of Appellant Even Though Form-5 Under Direct Taxes Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme Was Not Issued The Appellant By Jurisdictional Commissioner Of Income Tax. The Appellant Prays That Appeal May Be Restored Back To File To Of Cit(A) For Hearing The Appeal On Merits. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Order Passed Under Section 250 By Cit(A) Nfac, Delhi Dismissing The Appeal Is Wholly Illegal, Unlawful & Against The Principal Of Natural Justice. The Appellant Prays For Just, Fair & Appropriate Relief. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Cit(A) Nfac Erred In Not Passing A Speaking Order On The Grounds Raised By The Appellant Before Nafc. The Appellant Prays For Just, Fair & Appropriate Relief. 4. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Appellant Prays That Appeal Deemed To Be Withdrawn, May Be Revived.

For Appellant: Shri Digambar SurwaseFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 250

merits of the case. Under these circumstances and in the interest of justice, in our considered view, the assessee should be given an opportunity to be heard on merits of the case by the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A). Our view finds support from the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench ... matter back to his file for adjudication afresh and to pass speaking order on merits 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 documents/evidence

R B Diamond House, Jalgaon vs. Pne-C-1, Range -25, Circle -1, Jalgaon

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

ITA 1971/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay T. TupeFor Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 272A(1)(d)

Ritu Kalpesh Hiran, Satara vs. ITO, Satara

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

ITA 1649/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta, Addl.CIT

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151ASection 69A

direction to adjudicate the issues raised by the assessee afresh by passing a speaking order as per fact and law after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to submit the requisite details before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC on the appointed

Sahit Chowdary Garapati, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1680/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON'BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69

loan statement in order to explain the sources for the investment made and simply passed an ex- parte order without giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee against principles of law. He, therefore, pleaded that the matter may be set aside to the file of the Ld.CIT

Vasuki Katakam, Kurnool vs. ITO., Ward-1, Kurnool

ITA 1327/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1327/Hyd/2025

For Appellant: CA Hari AgarwalFor Respondent: MS P Sumitha, Sr. AR

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 151ASection 64Section 69A

information available with the Assessing Officer which suggests that income chargeable to tax for the A.Y.2015-16 has escaped assessment, an opportunity of being heard as per the provisions of section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was provided to the assessee by issuing a show-cause notice with

Bscpl Aurang Tollway Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 612/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay, wherein it was submitted that the appeal for the relevant assessment year was required to be filed within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. However, the

Section 143(3)Section 263

erroneous and insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment

Revanth Reddy Anumala, Banjara Hills vs. A.C.I.T Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

ITA 650/HYD/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

For Appellant: CA K C DevdasFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR

1 ITA.No.650/Hyd./2023 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME ТАХ АРРELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE

Rajeev Kejriwal, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 33(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2981/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 68

passing a speaking order. Needless ITA No.: 2981/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rajeev Kejriwal. to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission it wants to make in support of its grounds of appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments ... rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 shall also be followed and an opportunity of being heard may be provided to the Ld. AO, if required. Accordingly, all the grounds taken by the assessee in his appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal filed

Ramesh Kumar Damani, Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 61, Kolkata

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

ITA 2386/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 80G

appeal taken by the assessee on merit by passing a speaking order. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission it wants to make in support of its grounds of ITA No.: 2386/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Ramesh Kumar ... Damani. appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments and rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962 shall also be followed and an opportunity of being heard may be provided to the Ld. AO, if required. Accordingly, the grounds taken by the assessee in his appeal are partly allowed for statistical

Garrah Skus Limited, Bankura vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Bankura

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

ITA 2361/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 226(3)Section 250Section 69ASection 69C

Garrah SKUS Limited. of the Act were initiated and as the assessee did not furnish any reply in response to the opportunity of being heard provided as per section 148A(b) of the Act, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued. However, the assessee did not furnish ... interest of justice and fair play, the matter is remanded to the Ld. AO to frame the assessment de novo after granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall not seek unnecessary adjournments and shall ensure compliance by filing the required details before

Haywizz Havelock Island Resort, Port Blair vs. ITO, Ward 3(4), Port Blair

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

ITA 2255/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148ASection 194Section 250

matter back to the Ld. AO for making the reassessment de novo. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission it wants to make in support of its grounds of appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments

Madhu Devi Saraf Educatonal Trust, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 2160/KOL/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2023-2024

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Kothari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Altaf Hussain, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 119Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

With these directions, the issues in the appeal are restored to the file of the AO for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. 4 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court

Gopalchandra Bagui, Howrah vs. Assessment Unit, Incometax Department

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

ITA 2064/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 250

considered that the request of the assessee to set aside the case before the Ld. AO may be allowed so that a proper opportunity of being heard may be provided. Hence, after examining the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order ... matter back to the Ld. AO for making the reassessment de novo. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission it wants to make in support of its grounds of appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. Accordingly

Citywings Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2045/KOL/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2010-11 Citywings Agencies Pvt. Ltd...……..………………….……….……….……Appellant East India House, Room No.1A, 20B, British India Street, Kol-69. [Pan: Aaccc7832K] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Kolkata…………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanjib Kr. Paul, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 19, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 28, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 02.07.2025 Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2010–11. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Return Of Income Was Filed For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Declaring A Total Loss Of Rs.1,72,820/-. The Assessing Officer Got Information That The Assessee Had During The Relevant Assessment Year Under Consideration Received A Total Amount Of Rs.99,00,000/- From One M/S Long View Tie Up Pvt Ltd. Therefore, Notice U/S 148 Was Issued & In Response To The Notice U/S 148, The Assessee Declared A Total Loss Of Citywings Agencies Pvt. Ltd Rs.1,72,820/- . Thereafter, Notices U/S 143(2)/142(1) Of The Act Were Issued. The Assessment Order Determining Total Income At Rs.97,27,180/- Whereby Making Addition Of Rs.99,00,000/- U/S 68 Of The Act.

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 68

without going into the merits of the case submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Ld. AR therefore prayed for one fresh opportunity to be given to produce relevant details/documents to prove his case

Stream Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 7(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1936/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144BSection 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 151ASection 250

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Golden Goenka Credit Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1799/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

Section 127Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

letter of objection 2 Golden Goenka Credit Pvt. Ltd on 04.05.2024. In the course of fresh assessment proceeding, the assessee was allowed with opportunity of being heard and objections raised by them are disposed thereof. In consideration to the fact and circumstances of the case, the AO passed the assessment ... collected in the course of enquiry conducted by the AO must be provided to the Assessee and he must be given an opportunity of being heard on the said materials. 6.2.19. The reliance placed by AO on the judgment of NRA Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is totally misplaced

Anirudh Kothari (HUF), Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 50(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1586/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2022-23 Anirudh Kothari (Huf)…...……..………………….……….……….……Appellant Ad-30, Salt Lake, Kol-64. [Pan: Aajha5400M] Vs. Ito, Ward-50(1), Kolkata…………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Madanappa Raghuveer, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 19, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 28, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.05.2025 Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2022–23. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Huf & Return Of Income Was Filed For The Assessment Year Under Consideration Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.3.55 Lacs. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment Determining Total Income At Rs.11.93 Crore By Passing An Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act.

Section 143(3)Section 250