“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

Sunil Ghanshyamdas Khandelwal, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle- 42(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5275/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusheth

Section 143(3)Section 69C

circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not providing opportunity of being heard, despite the fact that the appellant had specifically requested the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to afford an opportunity of personal hearing via video

Vidya Buildcon Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Mumbai

ITA 4654/MUM/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Assessee by

Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 14. Needless to say, the assessee may be allowed with reasonable opportunity of being heard in the set-aside appellate proceedings, wherein the assessee shall comply with the notices under section 250 of the Act on time Vidya

Vidya Buildcon Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO 8 (3) (3), Aayakar Bhavan

ITA 4650/MUM/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Assessee by

Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

Kunshan Q Tech Microelectronics (India) Pvt. Ltd., Uttar Pradesh vs. DCIT, Central Circle-30, Delhi

ITA 5356/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 148Section 153

Court clarified that although Section 127(1) generally requires that reasons for transfer be recorded and that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard, these requirements are not absolute. The proviso to Section 127(1) creates an important exception: when a transfer is made within the same ... Court clarified that although Section 127(1) generally requires that reasons for transfer be recorded and that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard, these requirements are not absolute. The proviso to Section 127(1) creates an important exception: when a transfer is made within the same

Shri Mandorana Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Mandli Limited, Village-Mandorana vs. Income Tax Officer, Veraval

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee in both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 872/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri R. D. Lalchandani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Gopi Nath Chaubey, Sr. (DR)

Section 147

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 its case. Therefore, I deem it fit and proper to set aside both the orders of the ld. CIT(A) and remit

Shri Mandorana Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Mandli Limited, Jnd-Veraval vs. Income Tax Officer, Veraval

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee in both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 870/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri R. D. Lalchandani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Gopi Nath Chaubey, Sr. (DR)

Section 147

Himesh Rameshchandra Gohil, Bharuch vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Jamnagar

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 843/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Ms. Rutvika, ARFor Respondent: Shri Gopi Nath Chaubey, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80G

assessee. ITA No. 843/Rjt/2025 A.Y 19-20 Himesh R Gohil 6. Considering the above facts, I note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). I note that the ld. CIT(A) did not discuss ... 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. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, I restore the matter

Samay Charitable Trust, Surat vs. CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1168/SRT/2025[NA]Status: HeardITAT Surat19 Jan 2026

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

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Kabra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT-DR

Section 12A(1)(ac)

verify whether the assessee actually commenced its activities on 01.12.2024 and thereafter pass a fresh order in accordance with law after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Heard, dictated and pronounced

Bankimchandra Bipinchandra Kinkhabwala, Surat vs. Income Tax Office, Ward 1 (2) (6), Surat

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

ITA 1284/SRT/2024[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Surat19 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Kiran K. Shah, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Namita Patel, Sr DR

Section 250

well as on the subject, the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-6, Kolkata has erred in passing ex-parte order without giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard. 2. The. Addl/JCIT (A)-6, Kolkata has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case

Jharkhand Kalyan Awam Sewa Sansthan, Ranchi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Patna, Ranchi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 453/RAN/2024[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi19 Jan 2026AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.453/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2025-26 Jharkhand Kalyan Awam Sewa Sansthan…………..….….…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant Vi Ghiri, P.O Kamray, P.S Ratu, Ranchi-835222. [Pan: Aabtj0991J] Vs. Cit (Exemption), Patna………..................................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri P S Paul, Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 14, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 19, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.09.2024 Passed By The Cit(Exemption), Patna Rejecting Application For Registration U/S 80G Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’).

Section 80G

issue back to the file of the ld. CIT(E) with a direction to re-examine the issue afresh after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also direct the assessee to comply all notices and submit all the relevant documents/details during the remand proceedings for granting

Sarbjeet Kour, Jamshedpur vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Jamshedpur

ITA 440/RAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi19 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Sarbjeet Kour, A.C.I.T., T2/57, Ashok Road, East Singhbhum, Central Circle, Vs. Telco Works So, Jamshedpur-831004. Jamshedpur. Pan No. Bqapk 7229 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 148Section 149Section 149(1)Section 2Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)

principles of natural justice inasmuch as even after making a specific request for grant of personal hearing, the Appellant was not given an opportunity of being heard. E. FOR THAT, the Assessment Order as also the Appellate Order has been passed without due application of judicious mind, inasmuch

Shiv Shambhu Iron and Steel Private Limited, Jamshedpur vs. ACIT Circle 3(1), Jamshedpur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 286/RAN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi19 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.286/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shiv Shambhu Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd.…….…............................……….……Appellant Dropadi Bhawan, Station Road, Jugsalai, Jharkhand- 831002. [Pan: Aalcs7663M] Vs. Acit, Circle-3(1), Jamshedpur.….....…..…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sumit Dasgupta, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 15, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 19, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 12.04.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2011–12 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹30,17,990. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & An Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Was Completed Determining The Total Income At ₹39,08,910. Subsequently, Based On Information Received, It Was Noticed That The Assessee Company Had Shown Receipt Of ₹1,49,00,000 Comprising Share Capital Of ₹14,90,000 & Share Premium Of ₹1,34,10,000. On The Basis Of This Information, The Assessing Officer Issued Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act. In Response To The Notice, The

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

improper service, the concerned persons could not effectively look into the matter. Consequently, the assessee was deprived of a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It was therefore prayed that, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee and the matter be restored

Jaiswal Steel Industries Private Limited, Jamshedpur vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Jamshedpur

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

ITA 284/RAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi19 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.284/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Jaiswal Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. ….…….…............................……….……Appellant Dropadi Bhawan, Station Road, Jugsalai, Jharkhand- 831006. [Pan: Aabcj4471C] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Jamshedpur.….....…..…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sumit Dasgupta, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 15, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 19, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 02.04.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”).

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 69Section 69A

after hearing the submissions and perusing the material available on record, it is observed that the assessee did not get a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of justice, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored

Shiwaji Pd. Jaiswal, Guwahati vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Guwahati

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

ITA 47/GTY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati19 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) explaining the reason for delay in filing the appeal of 1862 days delay which is as under: "Dear Sir, Sub: Prayer for condonation of delay in filing appeal for the assessment year 2018-19 against the Assessment Order issued U/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 43B

this issue back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh 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 case and not to seek

Mohammed Wasim Akram, Madhepur, Barsoi, Katihar vs. ITO, Katihar

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

ITA 465/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna19 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.464&465/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Mohammed Wasim Akram..……………… …………………....Appellant At/Po – Madhepur, Barsol, Ps-Telta, Katihar, Bihar- 854317.. [Pan: Bfcpa6650Q] Vs. Ito, Katihar……………….…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Nishant Gaurav, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manab Advak, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 15, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 19, 2026 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Both Dated 14.08.2025. Ita No. 464/Patna/2025 Arises Out Of The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 Read With Section 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, Whereas

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271ASection 69A

remand the matter back to the file of the AO with a direction to adjudicate the appeal afresh on merits after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to fully cooperate and comply with the notices issued by the authorities

Mohammed Wasim Akram, Madhepur, Barsoi, Katihar vs. ITO, Katihar

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

ITA 464/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna19 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271ASection 69A

Gaurab Kumar, Puraini Bazar vs. ITO Ward 3(4) Saharsa, Koshi Chowk Saharsa

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

ITA 461/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna19 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte for non-compliance, without adjudicating the issues on merits. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. In the instant case, there is a delay of 100 days in filing the present

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44A

file of the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-adjudicate the issue after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to fully comply with the notices and cooperate in the assessment proceedings without any further default

Sanjeev Kumar, Muzaffarpur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, Patna

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose,

ITA 458/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna19 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

such bank account was maintained by the assessee, the Assessing Officer shall grant appropriate relief in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 10. In terms of the above appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose, 4 Sanjeev Kumar Order pronounced

PAN Tutorials Private Limited, Patna vs. DCIT/ACIT Cen Cir 3, Patna

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

ITA 364/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna19 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A). The Ld. Cit(A) After Considering The Submissions Of The Assessee Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee.

For Appellant: Sh. Shree Kant Prasad, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manab Adak, JCIT

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 250

apply the gross profit rate on the suppressed turnover of the assessee and decide the issue as per law after given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 19.01.2026 (Sonjoy Sarma

Jayganga Exim India Private Limited, Indore vs. DCIT Central Circle -2, Bhopal

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

ITA 580/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Vijaywargiya, C.AFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 69

case Ld. AO has erred in passing and Ld. CIT (A)-3, Bhopal has erred in confirming the impugned order without affording any opportunity of being heard against the principles of natural justice. 4. That the impugned assessment and appellate order so passed is illegal and wrong. 5. That ... notices of hearing before the learned CIT(A) were issued at an incorrect e-mail address, resulting in denial of an effective opportunity of being heard. The assessee has also categorically stated that it has a good case on merits and is in a position to substantiate the source