“ opportunity of being heard ”

CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another

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.

118 ITR 461 · 1997 · Supreme Court

1,656

Rashmikant Kundalia v. Union of India

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.

54 Taxmann.com 200 · 2015 · High Court

702

249 ITR 216 · 2001 · Supreme Court

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

624

341 ITR 537 · 2012 · High Court

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

318

Commissioner of Income Tax Madras v. Chenniyappa Mudiliar

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.

1 SCC 591 · 1985 · Reported

225

334 ITR 262 · 2011 · Supreme Court

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

211

Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT

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.

119 ITR 996 · 1979 · Supreme Court

205

ITA 6368/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

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

Jyoti Chauhan, New Delhi vs. Assessing Officer Ward 6(1), Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Swaroop, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151ASection 154Section 250Section 68

Impugned Order is bad and non est in law. 14. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in failing to grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before carrying out a rectification under Section 154 which had the effect of enhancing/increasing the liability on the Assessee. 15. That ... interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to Ld. AO for fresh consideration on merits after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be vigilant to make requisite compliance before the Ld. AO. 6. In the result

Seema Agarwal, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 27, New Delhi

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

ITA 5912/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Seema Agarwal, Vs. Dcit, A-44, Lgf, Dayanand Colony, Central Circle-27, New Delhi – 110 024. New Delhi. Pan: Aecpa0813K

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 250Section 271A

appeal was not finalized as already brought to the notice of the Ld.CIT(A), we find that the assessee be given a further opportunity of being heard by the Ld.CIT(A) in the quantum proceedings and, hence, the appeal is disposed of by restoring the issue to the file

Ariba India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2705/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(3)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

Dispute Resolution Panel shall be binding on the Assessing Officer. (11) No direction under sub-section (5) shall be issued unless an opportunity of being heard is given to the assessee and the Assessing Officer on such directions which are prejudicial to the interest of the assessee or the interest ... Officer shall, in conformity with the directions, complete, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 153, the assessment without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee, within one month from the end of the month in which such direction is received. (14) The Board may make

Anita Goyal, Gwalior vs. Income Tax Officr 2(2) Gwalior, Gwalior

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

ITA 623/AGR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra23 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshanita Goyal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 426, Tansen Nagar, Gwalior Ward-2(2), Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Acnpg3631L Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Sharma, Adv Shri Manuj Sharma, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23/01/2026

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR

ITA 576/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra23 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

appeal to file of ld NFAC for de novo adjudication in accordance with law. Needless to mention that the assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. The ld NFAC is directed to admit the additional legal grounds and dispose of the same in accordance with law in addition

Manoj Agarwal, Banswara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(3)(3), Kasganj

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshmanoj Agarwal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 3-B/19, Rati Talai, Ward-4(3)(3), Banswara, Rajasthan Kasganj (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Afspa3819E Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Sharma, Adv Shri Manuj Sharma, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23/01/2026

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri anil Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

decide the issues in dispute afresh in accordance with law on merits. Needless to mention that the Manoj Agarwal assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is at liberty to furnish further evidences and additional grounds, if any, in support of his contentions. The assessee is directed

Zakir Hussain, Jhansi vs. ITO-2(3)(1), Jhansi

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

ITA 550/AGR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra23 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Sahiv P. Satsangi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR

ITA 549/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra23 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

file of ld CIT(A) for de novo adjudication in accordance with law. Needless to mention that the assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is at liberty to furnish further evidences and additional grounds, if any, in support of his contentions. The assessee is directed

Zakir Hussain, Jhansi vs. ITO-2(3)(1), Jhansi

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Sahiv P. Satsangi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR

ITA 548/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra23 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Zakir Hussain, Jhansi vs. ITO-2(3)(1), Jhansi

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Sahiv P. Satsangi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR

ITA 893/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Surat23 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Shubh Laxmi Developers, Surat vs. The Incometax Officer, Ward 2(2)(1) Surat., Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT MS SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hiren R. Vepari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT-DR

ITA 424/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Surat23 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Year: 2016-17 - 2– the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication in accordance with law, after affording due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, we deem it fit to impose a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) upon the assessee shall

Kanaiyalal Labhubhai Narola, Surat vs. ACIT Circle 3(2), Surat

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

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Shaunak Zhaveri, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT-DR

ITA 422/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Surat23 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

aside the orders of Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to furnish all the details and explanations before the Ld. CIT(A) without seeking unnecessary adjournments

Kanaiyalal Labhubhai Narola, Surat vs. ACIT Circle 3(2), Surat

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

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Shaunak Zhaveri, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT-DR

ITA 421/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Surat23 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Saurabh Sushilkumar Nevatia, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(3)(5) New ITO, Ward 1(3)(1), Surat

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

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamblesaurabh Sushilkumar Nevatia, Ito, Vs. B/3-1101, Nandini, Near Ward – 1(3)(1), Rajeshwar Hospital, Vesu, Surat Surat - 395007 Old: Ito, Ward – 1(3)(6), Surat [Pan: Aelpn2816A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ramesh Malpani, Ca Respondent By: Shri Ajayuke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23.01.2026 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, [In Short, “The Cit(A)] Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. We Have Considered The Rival Submissions & Carefully Examined The Material Available On Record. It Is Observed That The Assessee Did Not Comply With The Notices Issued During The Assessment, Which Resulted In The Passing Of The Ex-Parte Order. We Note That The Ld. Cit(A) Did Not Consider The Delay Of 137 Days & Dismissed The Appeal Without Merit Of The Case. The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Requested That One More Opportunity May Be Given To Plead The Case Before The Lower Authorities. In The Interest Of Substantial Justice, We Are Of The Considered Opinion That The Assessee Deserves One More Opportunity To Represent His Case. Accordingly, We Set Aside The Impugned Order Passed By The Asst. Year: 2011-12 - 2– Ld. Cit(A) & Restore The Matter To The File Of The Assessing Officer For De Novo Adjudication In Accordance With Law, After Affording Due & Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee. The Assessee Is Directed To Furnish Relevant Details & Explanation Before The Assessing Officer Without Seeking Unnecessary Adjournment.

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Malpani, CAFor Respondent: Shri AjayUke, Sr. DR

ITA 361/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Surat23 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication in accordance with law, after affording due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to furnish relevant details and explanation before the Assessing Officer without seeking unnecessary adjournment

Hemant Jashubhai Gandhi, Surat vs. ACIT Circle 1(3), Surat

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

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamblehemant Jashubhai Gandhi, The Assistant Commissioner Vs. 20-B, Shree Shaktinagar Society, Of Income Tax, Opp. Experimental School, Circle-1(3), Nr. Ambika Ni Ketan Temple, Surat. Parle Point, Surat-395007. [Pan : Aawpg3547 Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Ashish Bhoola, Ar Respondent By: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23.01.2026 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Bhoola, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR

ITA 2969/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

deleted or alternatively the case Asst. Year : 2016-17 - 2– may kindly be set aside to CIT(A) with direction to give reasonable opportunity of being heard. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and/or withdraw any or all the above grounds of Appeal. Ground

The Government Iti Basmathnagar Imc Society, Hingoli vs. Exemption Ward, Nanded

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2969 & 2972/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 The Government Iti Vs. Income Tax Officer, Basmathnagar Imc Society, Exemption Ward, Opp To Navoday Vidyalay, Range 179, Nanded Basmat Parbhani Road, Basmathnagar, Dist. Hingoli 431512 Maharashtra Pan : Aabtg2544A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AvchatFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 10Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

case. The asseessee requests your honour to condone the delay in filing of appeal before the CIT A and afford us an opportunity of being heard. 8. The assessee hereby requests for allowing any other relief as available under the law. 9. The assessee craves leave to add, alter, amend

Vaijnath Gundappa Kshirsagar Through L/H. Shri Shivkumar Sadramappa Kshirsagar, Latur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1, Latur

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

ITA 2835/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JhaFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar

Section 144Section 148Section 154Section 54B

file of the Ld. AO for adjudication afresh on merits of the case as per fact and law after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee shall comply with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and make his submissions before

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai vs. Periyasamy Anbunathan, Karur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1596/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.J.K. Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

ITA 1595/CHNY/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026

cannot give any direction which may create any additional liability beyond what was proposed in the draft assessment order. That is why the opportunity of being heard is not mandated under section 153D of the Act. Thus, no prejudice can be caused to the assessee while granting approval under section

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai vs. Periyasamy Anbunathan, Karur

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1488 & 1489/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Periyasamy Anbunathan, No.10/97C, Ayyampalayam, Thottakurichi Post, Karur-639 113. [Pan: Ahmρα 6511 H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1529, 1536, 1595 & 1596/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2017-18, 2015-16 & 2016-17 & Cross-Objection Nos.45 & 46/Chny/2025 [In Ita Nos.1595 & 1596/Chny/2025] निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 The Dcit, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. Periyasamy Anbunathan, No.10/97C, Ayyampalayam, Thottakurichi Post, Karur-639 113. [Pan: Ahmρα 6511 H] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.J.K. Reddy, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Department By : Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2026

For Appellant: Mr.J.K. Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

ITA 1536/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'ए' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH: CHENNΑΙ श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai vs. Periyasamy Anbunathan, Karur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are

ITA 1529/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai vs. Periyasamy Anbunathan, Karur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.J.K. Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

ITA 1489/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Periyasamy Anbunathan, Karur vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.J.K. Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT