“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

Nirmala Alla, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the conditions stated above

ITA 1067/HYD/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jan 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar AVES, Sr.DR

Section 144

proceedings, the Ld. AO shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. The Ld. AO is also directed to afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law. ITA No.1067/Hyd/2025 6 8. In the result, the appeal

Sumitra Devi Bihani, Siliguri vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Siliguri

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

ITA 2588/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2017-18 Sumitra Devi Bihani…..………...………..............................……….……Appellant C/O Rexine King, Tera Hotel Building, Sevoke Road, Siliguri-734001. [Pan: Adjpb3235A] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(2), Siliguri...………….……………………...……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sujit Basu & Rajeev Mukherjee, Advocates, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S B Chakraborty, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 14, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16 ,2026 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 26.10.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) For The Ay 2017-18. 2 After Hearing The Rival Contentions, We Find That The Assessing Officer Framed The Assessment U/S 144 By Making An Addition U/S 69A Of Rs.84,74,102/- During Demonetization Period. In The Appellate Proceedings, The Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee By Passing An Ex Parte Order On Account Of Non-Appearance On Behalf Of The Assessee On Different Dates. We Find That The Ld. Cit(A) Dismissed The Appeal By Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer Without Discussing & Deciding The Issues On Merits When The Assessee Failed To Respond To The Sumitra Devi Bihani Opportunities Provided By The Ld. Cit(A). Under The Circumstances, In Our View, The Interest Of Justice Would Be Well-Served If The Appeal Is Restored To The File Of The Ld. Cit(A) With A Direction To Decide The Same On Merits After Affording Adequate Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee. Accordingly, We Set Aside The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) & Restore The Issue To The File Of The Ld. Cit(A).

Section 144Section 250Section 69A

appeal is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the same on merits after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the issue to the file

B. Das Memorial Medical Complex, Tarakeswar vs. ACIT, Circle 23(1), Hooghly

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the stay application stands dismissed

ITA 1727/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jan 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarstay Application No.01/Kol/2026 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1727/Kol/2025) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2022-2023) B.Das Memorial Medical Vs Acit, Circle-23(1), Hooghly Complex, C/O S.N.Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata-700001 Pan No. :Aaxfb 8400 A (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.01.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Stay Application Is Filed By The Assessee Seeking Stay Of Outstanding Demand Of Rs.1,63,12,293/- Arising Out Of The Ita No.1727/Kol/2025. 2. It Was Noticed That The Assessment Order Is An Ex-Parte Order & It Is Also Noticed That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee On Account Of Non-Condonation Of Delay. It Was Informed To Both The Sides That The Appeal Can Be Disposed Off. 3. It Was Fairly Agreed By Both The Sides That The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Before Ld. Cit(A) May Kindly Be Condoned & The Issue May Be Restored To The File Of Ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer For Readjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborty, Sr. DR

stands condoned and the issues are restored to the file of jurisdictional Assessing Officer for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. Consequent to the appeal being restored to the file of ld. jurisdictional Assessing Officer, the stay application filed by the assessee stands dismissed as infructuous

Independent and Public Spirited Media Foundation, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Central), Bengaluru

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 625/BANG/2023[Nill]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : Na

For Appellant: S/Shri. A. Sheshadri, CA and Bhardwaj Sheshadri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 133A

General or 71[Principal Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner or 71[Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner may 72, 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 72 from ... Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner from whose jurisdiction the case is to be transferred may 73, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, 73wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, pass the order; (b) where

Shiksha Se Shikhar Tak, New Delhi vs. CIT(Exemption), Civic Centre

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

ITA 8733/DEL/2025[2026-27]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2026-27

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member

Section 12ASection 80G

appeal in ITA Nos.8732/Del/2025 and 8733/Del/2025 argued that the appellant Page 1 of 4 ITA No.8732 & 8733/Del/2025 has not been accorded a fair opportunity of being heard before taking an adverse decision in its case. The Ld. Counsel argued that due opportunity of being heard was not accorded ... issues in twin appeals back to the ITA No.8732 & 8733/Del/2025 Ld. PCIT(E) for re-adjudication of the matter after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It shall be bounden upon the assessee to comply with all the statutory notices issued by the Ld.PCIT

Shiksha Se Shikhar Tak, New Delhi vs. CIT (Exemption), Civic Centre

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

ITA 8732/DEL/2025[2026-27]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2026-27

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member

Section 12ASection 80G

Chandi Ram Sahajwani Through Dinesh Kumar Legal Heir, Panipat vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 849/DEL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri K.L. Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 133Section 133(6)Section 54Section 54F

file of the Assessing Officer for verification. The Assessing Officer is directed to decide the issues afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to provide necessary information/documents/evidence as required by the authorities to establish his claim of deduction

Mahavir Prasad Gupta and Sons, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle -16, Delhi

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

ITA 6206/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed its appeal ex-parte without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard. It was accordingly requested that the matter may be considered for remission back to the ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication after giving due opportunity ... Accordingly, we set-aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and direct him to re-adjudicate the matter afresh after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and in accordance with law. It shall be bounden upon the assessee to comply with the statutory notices

Satender Tyagi C/O B K Kapur & Company, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, Meerut

In the result, assessee’s appeals ITA Nos

ITA 5832/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 147

back to the file of the Learned First Appellate Authority for decision afresh with a direction to adjudicate the matters upon granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and upon considering the evidence on record or any other evidence which the assessee may choose to file

Satender Tyagi C/O B K Kapur & Company, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, Meerut

In the result, assessee’s appeals ITA Nos

ITA 5831/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 147

Satender Tyagi C/O B K Kapur & Company, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, Meerut

In the result, assessee’s appeals ITA Nos

ITA 5830/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 147

Satender Tyagi C/O B K Kapur and Company, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, assessee’s appeals ITA Nos

ITA 5829/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 147

M/S Bhupendra Autotech Industries (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Haryana

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

ITA 5827/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16

Section 143(3)

days from the date of passing of this order. 4. However, to meet the ends of justice we would like to give further opportunity of being heard to the assessee by the Ld. CIT(A). Thus the appeal is disposed of by remitting the issue to the file ... consideration of the issue afresh upon granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and upon considering the evidence on record or any other evidence which the assessee may choose to file at the time of hearing of the matter. The Ld. CIT(A) is further directed to proceed

Mdgupta Developers Private Limited, Ghaziabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5821/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 143(3)

back to the file of the Learned First Appellate Authority for decision afresh with a direction to adjudicate the matter upon granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and upon considering the evidence on record or any other evidence which the assessee may choose to file

Income Tax Officer, Hisar vs. Ajay Kumar, Hisar

In the result, ground raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5861/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 37Section 69C

purchases, there could not be any sales. It is further submitted that the Ld. A.O. erred not to provide a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. If the Ld A.O. was not satisfied with the reply of Assessee regarding Genuineness of purchases, Appellant should have been ... given sufficient opportunity of being heard, to explain the same further and Ld. AO has failed to appreciate the fact that no response received for Notice u/s 133(6) of Income Tax Act is no ground to treat the purchases as non-genuine and liabilities as unexplained credits. That most

Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Hisar, Hisar vs. Ajay Kumar, Hisar

In the result, ground raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5836/DEL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 37Section 69C

Zeba Urfi, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-7(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 271/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14] Ms. Zeba Urfi, Income Tax Officer, 16Tf, Community Centre, Ward-7(4), C.R. Building, New Delhi Vs New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaipu6601K Assessee Revenue Assessee By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. Shri Aayush Garg, Ca Revenue By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026

Section 10(1)Section 143(3)

totality. Page 2 of 7 2. That CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that fact that ld. AO has not given enough opportunity of being heard in the course of assessment proceedings for the sake of natural justice. 3. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in ignoring the fact

Prem Lata Verma, Marris Road Aligarh vs. DCIT 4(1) (1), Aligarh

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

ITA 478/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 68Section 80C

assessee neither appeared nor filed submission before him. The contention of the learned AR is that the assessee has not been afforded fair opportunity of being heard. To meet the ends of justice, we think it appropriate to remit the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for passing ... assessment de novo after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the Assessing Officer and furnish her submissions and requisite information without seeking unnecessary adjournments. Accordingly, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result

Prem Lata Verma, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh vs. DCIT, Circle 4(1)(1), Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 441/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 10(1)Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

income. 4. Ground No. 4: That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by not granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. Ground No. 5: That the Ld. AO has erred in law as well as on facts by levying the penalty

Ila Jigneshkumar Vakharia, Gondal vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2)(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 600/RJT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.600/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Anadi Dixit, Ld. Sr-DR

Section 147Section 250Section 68

comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. 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