“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

Naresh Ahirwar, Bhopal vs. Income-Tax Officer, 5(3), Bhopal

In the result we are of the considered

ITA 242/IND/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshinaresh Ahirwar, Ito -1(2), बनाम/ Gram Badwani, New Jail Bhopal Vs. Road, Bypass Road, Tehsil Huzur, District Bhopal(M.P.) (Pan: Azopa9342A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Arpit Gaur, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 22.01.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 144Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 54B

sale agreement of agrl. Land in support of cash deposit. But, the appellant failed to furnish the same after availing sufficient opportunity of being heard. In nutshell, the issue involved in this case was regarding source of cash deposit in the bank account to the tune

Warana Indusries Ltd, Kolhapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1285/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: None (written submissions filed)For Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to adjudicate the issue afresh and in accordance with law and after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 13. So far as the second issue raised in the grounds of appeal is concerned, the same relates to the interest ... file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the same afresh and in accordance with law and after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. CO No.39/PUN/2022 14. The first issue raised

Raghuram Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1840/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

vide order date 05.08.2021 rejected the application of assessee for grant of immunity after granting him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) . ITA No.1835 to 1840/Bang/2025 Page 14 of 18 confirmed the penalty levied under section 270A of the Act and dismissed the grounds raised

Raghuram Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1839/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

Raghuram Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1838/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

Raghuram Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1837/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

Raghuram Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1836/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

Raghuram Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1835/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

Salma Sadiq Kantharia, Mumbai vs. ITO - Ward 41(1)(4), Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7403/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishsalma Sadiq Kantharia Ito-Ward 41(1)(4) A/06, 1St Floor, Shamsuddin Nagar, Kautilya Bhavan, C41-43, Andheri Kurla Road, Jari Mari Kurla, Avenue 3, Near Videsh Bhavan, Mumbai-400 072 Vs. G Block, Bkc, Gilban Area, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra E, Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No. Andpk 5832 A (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Piyush Chhajed & Shri Ayush Chhajed Respondent By : Shri Swapnil Choudhari Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against Order Dated 27.05.2024 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi For The Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2021-22. 2. Before We Proceed To Deal With The Appeal, We Notice That There Is A Delay Of 471 Days In Filing The Appeal. The Assessee Has Sought Condonation Of Delay By Furnishing An Affidavit, Explaining The Reason For Delay. It Is The Case Of The Assessee That In The Appeal Memo, In Form No. 35, The Address Of Communication Was That Of Assessee’S Tax Consultant, Ca Niranjan R Shah. However, Being An Elderly Person, Suffering From Prolonged Illness

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed &For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari

impugned order of ld. First appellate authority and restore the issues back to him for adjudication on merits after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 3 Salma Sadiq Kantharia vs. ITO 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced

Pranay Mohan Lokegaonkar, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 22(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7400/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2015-16 Pranay Mohan Lokegaonkar, Ito, Ward 22 (2)(1), 1, Vatsala Niwas, Sohan Singh Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Chawl, Santacruz-West,- Mumbai – 400012. Mumbai- 400054. Pan – Acxpl4887B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vishwas Mehendale, (Virtually Present) Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.10.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2015-16. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessing Officer, Vide Assessment Order Dated 29.03.2022 Under Section 147 Read With Sections 144 & 144B Of The Act, Has Made The Additions Of Rs.36,00,000/- & Rs.1,12,50,000/- On Account Of Unexplained Investment Under Section 69 Of The Act & Claim Of Long-Term Capital Gain Respectively. 2 Pranay Mohan Lokegaonkar

For Appellant: Shri Vishwas MehendaleFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, SR. D.R

Section 147Section 249Section 250Section 69

Commissioner, before deciding the appeal filed by the assessee, has not issued any notice to the Assessee and/or has not provided any opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. Thus, on this peculiar fact, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. Even otherwise, the Assessee has claimed ... inclined to remand the matter to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice it to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. Thus, the case is remanded to the file of the learned Commissioner for decision afresh, in the above terms

Prerna Navinyapurn Mahila Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit, Navi Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 28(2)(1)Mumbai, Vashi

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

ITA 7392/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2017-18 Prerna Navinyapurn Mahila The Income Tax Officer, Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit, Ward 28 (2)(1), Room No.932, 933 Ss Ii, Sector Vs. 4Th Floor, Tower No.6, Vashi 7 Koperkhairane, Station Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400709. Maharashtra – 400703. Pan – Aacap7862Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya, Ld. Adv. Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.09.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2017-18. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessing Officer, Vide Assessment Order Dated 28.04.2023 Under Section 147 Read With Section 144B Of The Act, Has Made An Addition Of Rs.10,44,854/- Being Unexplained Cash Deposit Under Section 69A Of The Act. 2 Prerna Navinyapurn Mahila Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Ld. SR. D.R

Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 69A

impugned order, affirmed the said addition, dismissing the appeal of the Assessee by passing a cryptic order and without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee, as claimed by the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee. 4. The Ld. counsel for the Assessee has also claimed that though relevant ... file of the Assessing Officer for 3 Prerna Navinyapurn Mahila Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit decision afresh, suffice it to say, by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 6. The Assessee is also directed to comply with the notices to be issued and file the relevant submissions and documents

Shankerlal Namomal Jarani ( Prop of Martina Food Products), Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7379/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Bhavik ChhedaFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

impugned orders of learned first appellate authority with a direction to condone the delay and adjudicate the appeals on merits after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Further, we direct the assessee to diligently comply with the notice of hearing to be issued by learned first appellate

Shankerlal Namomal Jarani (Prop of Martina Food Products), Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7378/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Bhavik ChhedaFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

Shankerlal Namomal Jarani (Rpop of Martina Food Products ), Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Kalyan

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7377/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Bhavik ChhedaFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

Shankerlal Namomal Jarani ( Prop of Martina Food Products), Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7376/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Bhavik ChhedaFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

Shankerlal Namomal Jarani ( Prop of Martina Food Products), Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Kalyan

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7375/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Bhavik ChhedaFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

Shankerlal Namomal Jarani (Prop of Martina Food Products), Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7374/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Bhavik ChhedaFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

Prakash Jewellers, Mumbai vs. ACIT 32(2), Mumbai Bandra

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

ITA 6850/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Prusethassessment Year: 2017-18 Prakash Jewellers, Acit 32 (2) 31 B-1 2Nd Floor, Meghdoot, S V Room No. 720, 7Th Floor, Road, Borivli West, Mumbai, Kautilya Bhavan C-41 To C- Vs. Maharashtra – 400092 43 G Block Bandra East, Mumbai, Maharashtra Pan : Aaafp4374Q 400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Shah, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.10.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2017-18. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessing Officer Vide Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2019 Has Made An Addition Of Rs. 5,90,00,000/- Being Cash Deposited, In Yes Bank By The 2 Prakash Jewellers Assessee During The Demonetization Period, As Unexplained Cash Credit Under Section 68 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, SR. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 250Section 68

inclined, to remand back the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 11. We also deem it appropriate to direct the Assessee to re- file the relevant documents and submissions before

Apurva Mukesh Thakkar, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(2)(1) Mumbai, Kautiliya Bhavan

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

ITA 6367/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla& Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarapurva Mukesh Ito Ward 41 Thakkar (2)(1) Mumbai 11 Dr Rp Road & Ns Vs. Room No. 234 Mataji Bungalow Bldg Kautilya Bhavan Cross Road Near City C41 To C43 Block Bank Atm Mumbai Bkc Bandra East 400080 - Mumbai Mumbai 400051, Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Adspt8293K (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shriparth J. Bhatt Revenue By Shrisurendra Mohan (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing 19.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 22.01.2026

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250

justice, the matter deserves to be examined afresh at the level of the Assessing Officer, after granting the assessee a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard. 19. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A), and the assessment order on this issue, and restore the matter

Goregoan Sports Club, Mumbai vs. CIT Exemptions, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5587/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishgoregoan Sports Club, Income Tax (Exemption), Room No. 601, 6Th Floor, Cumballa Link Road, Chincholi Bunder, Opp, Swagat Park, Malad (West), Vs. Hill, Mtnl Building, Peddar Road, Mumbai Cumballa Hill, Mumbai - 400026 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatg 0279P Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ca Respondent By : Shri Arun Kanti Datta, Cit- Dr (Appellant) (Respondent) Date Of Hearing : 14.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT- DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

such an application, learned CIT(E) should consider it for approval after condoning the delay, if any, and only after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 22 /01/2026. (Jagadish) Vice