“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

Pratik Ravjibhai Kacharola, Morbi vs. ITO, Ward-1, Morbi

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

ITA 692/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 692/Rjt/2025 Assessment Year: (2017-18) Pratik Ravjibhai Kacharola Vs. The Ito, Ward – 1 4-Anumpam Society, B/H. Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Akshardham Apartment, Ring Road, Rajkot – 360001 Ravapar Road, Morbi - 363641 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bwrpk4078C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: 18/02/2026

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party should be granted opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Keeping in view, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remitted the matter back

Marpokba Jamir, Kohima vs. ITO W 1(2) Dimapur, Dimapur

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

ITA 61/GTY/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumarmarpokba Jamir, H/No. 254, Below Sc. College I.T.O., Road, Kohima Sadar, Kohima Ward-1(2), Vs. H.O., Kohima, Dimapur. Nagaland-797001 (Nagaland) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Agqpj 7226 F Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Amit Kumar Pandey, Jcit Date Of Hearing: 13/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 13/03/2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Pandey, JCIT

Section 144Section 147

remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT (A) for fresh adjudication on merit with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, we also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before

Pramod Kumar Sharma, Assam vs. Central Circle-2, Guwahati, Assam

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

ITA 55/GTY/2026[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Amit Kumar Pandey, JCIT

Section 147Section 250

justice, we restore the issues in the appeal to the file of ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating afresh after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. At the same breath, we also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the ld. CIT (A) failing ... Consequently, we restore the issues in the appeal to the file of ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating afresh after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. 5. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only. Order pronounced in the open court

Pramod Kumar Sharma, Assam vs. Central Circle-2, Guwahati, Assam

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

ITA 54/GTY/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Amit Kumar Pandey, JCIT

Section 147Section 250

Tumjom Tato, Naharlagun vs. ITO, Ward North Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur

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

ITA 51/GTY/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Pandey, JCIT

Section 250

restore the issues in the appeal to the file ld. CIT(A), for adjudicating afresh on merit after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard to substantiate its case. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the ld. CIT(A), by producing all the details and evidences ... Consequently, we restore the issues in the appeal to the file of ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating afresh after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. 7. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only. Order pronounced in the open court

Tumjom Tato, Naharlagun vs. ITO, Ward North Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur

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

ITA 50/GTY/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Pandey, JCIT

Section 250

Gnrc Ltd, Dispur vs. ITO W-2(1), Guwahati, Gs Road

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

ITA 49/GTY/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Chandak, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Pandey, JCIT

restore the issues in the appeal to the file of ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the ld. CIT(A) and also directed to provide all the relevant documents and evidences as required

Sentilemba, Mokokchung, Nagaland vs. ITO Ward 2, Dimapur

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

ITA 23/GTY/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sidhant Sharma, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Dipak Singh, CIT-DR

restore the issues in the appeal to the file of Id. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the Id. CIT(A) and also directed to provide all the relevant documents and evidences as required

Namrup College, Namrup vs. ITO Ward 2(4) Exemp, Shillong

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

ITA 20/GTY/2026[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumarnamrup College, I.T.O., Po Parbatpur, Namrup, Ward-2(2),Exemp., Vs. Dibrugarh-786623 (Assam) Shillong. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatn 8580 E Assessee By : Shri Dindayal Dhandharia, Fca Revenue By : Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing: 13/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 13/03/2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Dindayal Dhandharia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl.CIT

Tanu Prasad Phukan, Nazira vs. Assessment Unit (Nafac), Delhi

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

ITA 270/GTY/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.S.B. Baruah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sipak Singh, DR

consequently, we restore the appeal to the file of the Id. AO with a direction to decide the same after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 13.03.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAJESH

North East Ne Bitumen, Guwahati vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Guwahati

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

ITA 258/GTY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Goenka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar karnani, DR

Section 271A

that these books of accounts along with documents could be examined by the authorities and case can be decided denovo after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, we restore the appeal to the file of AO with the above directions. 5. In the result, the appeals

North East Ne Bitumen, Guwahati vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Guwahati

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

ITA 257/GTY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Goenka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar karnani, DR

Section 271A

North East Ne Bitumen, Guwahati vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Guwahati

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

ITA 256/GTY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Goenka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar karnani, DR

Section 271A

Jahar Deb, Agartala vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Agartala

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 244/GTY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shriduvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 271(1)(c)

file of the Id. AO with a direction to re-adjudicate the same after taking into account the evidences and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard the assessee. The appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 243/GTY/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In case of penalty appeal

Jahar Deb, Agartala vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Agartala

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 243/GTY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shriduvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 271(1)(c)

Holistic Advisory Services, Guwahati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3), Guwahati

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

ITA 202/GTY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shriduvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Goenka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, DR

this appeal is restored to the file of the learned AO with a direction to decide the same on merit after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is further clarified that assessee should also not seek any adjournments unless otherwise required for valid and reasonable cause

Platinum Sales, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward2(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 1156/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1156/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Platinum Sales, The Ito, Scf-10, Sector 9-D, बनाम Ward 2(1), Chandigarh Chandigarh Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aanfp7207P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Phsyical Hearing) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Ms. Ekakshra Mandhar, Advocate & Sh. Atul Mandhar, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr.Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2026 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14.07.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi.

For Appellant: Ms. Ekakshra Mandhar, Advocate, and Sh. Atul Mandhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR

Section 147Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

said request was neither acknowledged nor considered and the Lrd. Assessing Officer proceeded to pass the order without providing the Assessee an effective opportunity of being heard, which is in violation of the principles of natural justice and has caused grave prejudice to the Assessee. 2. That ... prescribed statutory time limit. The said request was neither acknowledged nor considered and the order was passed without providing the Assessee an effective opportunity of being heard, which is in violation of the principles of natural justice and has caused grave prejudice to the Assessee. Furthermore, it was submitted that

Shree Aishwarya Laxmi Mahila Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 9(3), Pune

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

ITA 114/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.114/Pun/2026 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Shree Aishwarya Laxmi Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Mahila Nagari Sahakari Ward-9(3), Pune Patsanstha Maryadit, Plot No.16, Vijaynagar Colony, Vadgaon, Tal. Maval, Dist. Pune 412 106 Maharashtra Pan : Aaaam7430P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir JainFor Respondent: Shri Dayanand Jawalikar

Section 147Section 250

appeal. In view of the above, it is humble prayer before the Hon. Bench to kindly condone the delay and grant an opportunity of being heard on merits.” 3. On due consideration of the averments made by the assessee and also adopting justice oriented approach, I find that the delay

Kyori Oremin Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle 2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 2037/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.2037/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2013-2014 Kyori Oremin Limited, Hyderabad. The Dcit, Vs. Pin - 500 081. Circle-2(1), Telangana. Hyderabad. Pan Aadck1617K (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Sri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca For Revenue : Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Sri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40

matter is remanded to the record of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication of the appeal on merits, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13.03.2026. [MANJUNATHA

Poreddy Sambasiva Reddy, Kadiri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Hindupur

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

ITA 1862/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1862/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2018-19) Poreddy Sambasiva Reddy, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Kadiri. Ward-1, Pan: Bibpr4972G Hindupur. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) करदाताका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri Nvv Gopalal Krishna, Ca Assessee Represented By राज"वका""त"न"ध"व/ : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.Ar Department Represented By सुनवाईसमा"तहोनेक""त"थ/ : 09/03/2026 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/ : 13/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Poreddy Sambasiva Reddy, Kadiri (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 22/10/2025 For The Assessment Year (“A.Y.” 2018-19. Poreddy Sambasiva Reddy Vs. Ito 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

shall examine the additional evidences filed by the assessee and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after providing proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall be at liberty to file all supporting evidences Page 7 of 8 Poreddy Sambasiva Reddy vs. ITO before