“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

M/S. Neeta Developers, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 22(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7316/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhat, ARFor Respondent: Assessee by

Section 143(3)Section 156Section 69A

proposed additions as required by Section 143(3). Thus, the order should be annulled. (ii) The assessment order was passed without giving proper opportunity of being heard to your appellant. GROUND II On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that

Smt Gangaben Parshottam Parikh Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7288/MUM/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishsmt. Gangaben Parshottam Parikh Cit(Exemption) 6Th Floor 601 Cumballa Hill Mtnl, Charitable Trust, 601 Laxmi Coop Hsg Society, 19/21 Dr Deshmukh Building Peddar Road, Dr Goplarao Lane, Vp Road, Vs. Deshmukh Road, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai - 400004 Mumbai - 400026

For Appellant: Shri D.B. Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 80G

Gangaben Parshottam Parikh Chairtable u/s. 12AB of the Act. Needless to mention, while deciding the issue learned CIT(E) must provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He should also bear in mind that assessee was granted approval u/s. 80G of the Act till

Manish Bhavanji Bheda, Mumbai vs. DCIT 20(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7252/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharymanish Bhavanjibheda Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Room No. 25, Vishwas Tax, Circle 20(1), Room No. 305, Piramal Niwas No. 9, Acharya Chambers, Dr. S. S. Rao Road, Lalbaug, Donde Marg, Parel, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400012. Pan/Gir No:Aekpb1041E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 250Section 68

spite of the fact that- 1 ITA No.7252/MUM/2025/AY 2016-17 Manish BhavanjiBheda a. The Assessing Officer has failed to provide the opportunity of being heard when the Authorised Representative of the Assesseee has brought for submission to the Assessing Officer on 21-12-2018 Confirmation Letters with supporting documents

Mahesh Pyarelal Sharma, Mumbai vs. Asst Comm of Income Tax Circle 34(2), Mumbai

ITA 7218/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad

Section 143(3)Section 147

Learned CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate the grounds raised by the Assessee in appeal afresh after granting the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Assessee is directed to be vigilant and track the appellate proceedings through Income Tax Business Application Portal. In case the Assessee fails ... directed to adjudicate the grounds raised by the Assessee in both the appeals afresh after granting the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Assessee is directed to be vigilant and track the appellate proceedings through Income Tax Business Assessment Year 2012-2013, 2013-2014 & 2015-2016 Application Portal

Mahesh Pyarelal Sharma, Mumbai vs. Asst Comm of Income Tax Circle 34(2), Bandra Kurla Complex

ITA 7217/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad

Section 143(3)Section 147

Mr. Dollar Chunilal Modi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 42(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7189/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()**

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 50Section 54F

novo* verification of the statutory conditions laid down under the said provision. The Ld. AO shall examine the claim, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, and shall pass a speaking order on the issue in accordance with law. **Accordingly, grounds raised by assessee stands partly

Mahesh Pyarelal Sharma, Juhu Andheri West vs. Income Tax Officer Circle 34(2), Mumbai

ITA 7178/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: notices for assessment were received and had commenced treatment for the same. 5. That I was employed out of Mumbai and had to travel to Mumbai for short visit to take her to hospital for treatment and hence was unable to attend to the notices and income details during the assessment proceedings. Further, I was also mentally disturbed, leading to additions being made in the assessment. 6. That I had filed submissions before the Ld CIT(A) on to 10/04/2019. 7. That I had filed all submissions

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad

Section 143(3)Section 147

Bipin Futarmal Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee are allowed, in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7023/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

Section 132Section 153Section 153CSection 250Section 69

facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in - (i) not granting proper, sufficient, reasonable and fair opportunity of being heard to the Appellant while passing the appellate order, (ii) not granting an opportunity of personal hearing WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE: 3. ASSESSMENT

Bipin Futarmal Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee are allowed, in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7022/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

Section 132Section 153Section 153CSection 250Section 69

Bipin Futarmal Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee are allowed, in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7021/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

Section 132Section 153Section 153CSection 250Section 69

Rama Sivaraman, Mumbai vs. AO Ward 3(2), Thane

ITA 6947/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Mr. Rajeev N. LFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri

Section 147

made in the hands of the Assessee with the directions to the Assessing Officer to adjudicate the issue afresh after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Assessee would be at liberty to place before Assessing Officers such document/details/agreements as the Assessee may deem fit in support

Rama Sivaraman, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3(2), Mumbai

ITA 6946/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Mr. Rajeev N. LFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri

Section 147

Sandip Foundation, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6031/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Arun Khodpiashri Sandeep Singh Karhailsandip Foundation 2Nd Floor, Koteshwar Plaza, J.N. Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai – 400080 ............... Appellant Pan: Abefs2855C

For Appellant: Shri K GopalFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 13(2)(c)Section 13(2)(d)Section 154Section 234ASection 250

justice 1. The Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in passing the order dated 2.07.2025 without affording the Appellant an appropriate opportunity of being heard. Thus, the impugned order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961(the Act) on 2nd July, 2025 without affording ... Appellant a proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard is in breach of principle of natural justice and the same be set aside. The said ex-parte order is against the principles of natural justice and hence is unjustified, bad in law, and liable to be quashed. II. The order

Mayur Kanubhai Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 1992)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 5600/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rishav PatawariFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

file of the Ld. JAO. Needless to say, the Ld. JAO shall duly consider the submissions of the assessee and afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the file of the Ld. JAO for this limited purpose. 7. In the result, the appeal

Laxmi Kashinath Thanekar, Maharashtra vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, Thane

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 4780/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234B

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Incometax Officer-42(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Nipul Sureshchandra Mehta, Mumbai

ITA 4291/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay A. Thakkar &For Respondent: Assessee by

Section 144Section 69A

restored back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh adjudication. 6. Needless to say, the assessee shall be provided with reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is directed to co-operate in the set aside proceedings before the Ld. AO, without any fail, else the Ld. AO would

M/S. Nanshi Export Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -15(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4099/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Nanshi Export Private Limited Income Tax Officer-15(2)(1), 301, 3Rd Floor Stanford Plaza Opp. Mumbai Vs. Citi Mall Nr. Oberoi Spring New Link Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai- Road, Andheri West, Maharashtra 400020 Pan No. Aadcn 0694 B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Beena Santosh, CIT DR

Section 144Section 148Section 69C

Assessing Officer, which, in our considered view, require proper the Assessing Officer, which, in our considered view, require proper examination after affording adequate opportunity of being heard. In examination after affording adequate opportunity of being heard. In examination after affording adequate opportunity of being heard. In the interest of justice

Dr. Virendra Swaroop Educational Foundation, Kanpur vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Dehradun

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 211/DDN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun16 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2023-24] Dr. Virendra Swaroop Vs Acit Educational Foundation Central Circle 15/96, Civil Lines, Kanpur Dehradun Uttar Pradesh-208001 Pan-Aaajd0224D Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv. Shri Rajiv Sahni, Ca Shri Sumit Lal Chandanim, Adv. Shri Shivam Yadav, Adv. & Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.09.2025 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Kanpur [“Pcit”] Passed U/S 12(Ab)(4)(Ii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961[“The Act”] Cancelling The Registration Granted U/S 12A Of The Act From Assessment Year 2023-24 & Onwards.

Section 11Section 12Section 127Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 132Section 143(3)

some order in writing from higher authorities i.e. from Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Exmp.) Delhi or CBDT in writing and an opportunity of being heard is to be given to the assessee before transferring the case whereas all these are absent in the present case and nothing has been ... General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, transfer any case from

Cooperative Cane Deve. Union, Ltd., Haridwar vs. ITO, W- 1(3)(1), Haridwar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 158/DDN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun16 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year: 2019-20] Co-Operative Cane Development Vs Ito Union Limited, Jawalapur, Ward-1(3)(1) Vill. & P.O. Jawalapur, Distt.- Haridwar Haridwar, Uttarakhand-249407 Uttarakhand Pan-Aaaic0152B Appellant Respondent Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.07.2024 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2018-19/10076885 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Intimation Order Dated 02.12.2020 Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Assessee Filed The Letter & Stated That The Written Submission Made Be Considered. Therefore, Ld. Sr. Dr Was Heard & Proceeded To Decide The Appeal Filed By The Assessee On The Basis Of Material Available On Record. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Co-Operative Society Constituted By The State Government, Engaged In The Business Of Providing Credit Facilities To Its Members Who Are Agriculturists & Cane Growers Also, Marketing Of Agricultural Products & Purchase Of Agricultural Implements & Other Products Like Fertilizers, Insecticides Etc. Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.08.2019, Declaring Total Income At Nil & Claimed Deduction U/S 80P Of Inr 1,04,54,668/-. Thereafter, The Return Of Income Was Processed U/S 143(1), Assessed Total Income At Inr 1,04,54,668/- Where Deduction U/S 80P Was Not Provided To The Assessee Society.

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80P

deduction made u/s 80P and such claim has been a highly debatable issue in the case and also no show cause notice or opportunity of being heard against disallowance of claim u/s 80P has been given to the appellant before passing the Intimation order and further, because the grounds taken ... also in an assessment order passed u/s 143(3) for earlier AY 2011-12, hence, without giving a proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard by issuing a show cause notice, an adjustment of Rs. 10454659/- on account of disallowance of claim of deduction u/s 80P in the return filed

Jignesh Narendrabhai Mandaliya, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1)(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 874/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Brijesh Parekh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Gopi Nath Chaubey, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 147Section 250

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, I deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit