← All Phrases

“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

Ramkrishna Vivekanand Society, Dhanbad vs. CIT Exemption, Patna

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

ITA 491/RAN/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi15 Jan 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. Nos.490 & 491/Ran/2024 Assessment Years: 2023-24 & 2024-25 Ramkrishna Vivekanand Society….…….…............................……….……Appellant Opp K Worah Building Bank More Dhanbad – 826001.. [Pan: Aaatr2052D] Vs. Cit (Exemption), Patna............……….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 13, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 15, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 25.10.2024 Passed By The Cit(Exemption), Patna Rejecting Application For Registration U/S 80G Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’) For Assessment Years 2023-24 & 2024-25 Respectively. Since The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, The Appeals Are Being Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. First, We Proceed To Deal With Ita No.490/Ran/2024. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Trust & An Application In Form 10Ab Was Filed By The Assessee For Grant Of Application For Registration U/S 80G Of The Act. The Ld. Cit(E) Rejected The

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

Ramkrishna Vivekanand Society, Dhanbad vs. CIT Exemption, Patna

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

ITA 490/RAN/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi15 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. Nos.490 & 491/Ran/2024 Assessment Years: 2023-24 & 2024-25 Ramkrishna Vivekanand Society….…….…............................……….……Appellant Opp K Worah Building Bank More Dhanbad – 826001.. [Pan: Aaatr2052D] Vs. Cit (Exemption), Patna............……….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 13, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 15, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 25.10.2024 Passed By The Cit(Exemption), Patna Rejecting Application For Registration U/S 80G Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’) For Assessment Years 2023-24 & 2024-25 Respectively. Since The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, The Appeals Are Being Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. First, We Proceed To Deal With Ita No.490/Ran/2024. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Trust & An Application In Form 10Ab Was Filed By The Assessee For Grant Of Application For Registration U/S 80G Of The Act. The Ld. Cit(E) Rejected The

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

Navyug Nirman Shaikshanik Sansthan, Patna vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Patna

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

ITA 477/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.477/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Navyug Nirman Shaikshanik Sansthan. …………………....Appellant Guru Kripa, Shiv Raj Yadav Path, Mohanpur, Punaichak, Po- L B S Nagar, Patna, Bihar- 800023. [Pan: Aaefn5170A] Vs. Dcit, Cc-1, Patna………….…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Vishal Kr. Adv. Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manab Advak, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 13, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 15, 2026 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.08.2025 Passed By The Cit(A)-3, Patna U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Firm & Had Not Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19. An Information Was Received By The Assessing Officer That The Assessee Has Deposited Cash Of Rs.1,10,77,405/- In The Bank Account During The Relevant Assessment Year. As There Was Reason To Believe That The Amount Of Rs. 1,10,77,405/- Was Escaped Assessment, The Case Of The

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

find that the order passed by the CIT(A) is an ex parte order passed without adjudicating on merits and without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In our considered opinion, the ends of justice would be met if the entire matter is restored to the file ... fresh adjudication on merits, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate fully and furnish all necessary supporting documents to substantiate its claims. In case the assessee fails to comply, the Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass

Sunil Kumar Singh, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 6 (1), Patna

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

ITA 390/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: the sale of immovable properties on which long term capital gain was derived.

Section 250Section 251(2)Section 3Section 54BSection 54F

issued a show cause notice u/s 251(2) of the Act dated 17/06/2025 for compliance on 20/06/2025 and thereby denying proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 3. For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in dismissing the appeal and thereby affirming the additions made ... file of the A.O. and/or the CIT(A) as neither the A.O. nor the CIT(A) has granted proper and adequate opportunity of being heard while making additions and its sustenance by the CIT(A) including resorting to enhancement of Rs.1.31 crores. 16. For that the appellant

Johar Gadly Alias Zohar Mohammad Bhai Through Legal Heir Rashida Gadly, Patna vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Patna

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

ITA 295/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.295/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Johar Gadly Alias Zohar Mohammad Bhai ……………....Appellant Shop No.5, Aditya Arcade, Exhibition Road, Patna, Bihar- 800001. [Pan: Abopb7542H] Vs. Acit, Cc-2, Patna………….…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Hiresh Karan, Adv. Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manab Advak, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 13, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 15, 2026 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.01.2025 Passed By The Cit(A)-3, Patna U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income Declaring A Total Income Of ₹2,94,100. The Assessing Officer Completed Assessment U/S 143(3) By Determining Total Income At Rs.8,63,000/- After Making Addition Of Rs.11,57,190/- On Account Of Unexplained Investment U/S 69 Of The Act.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

dismissed solely on account of non-appearance of the assessee, without adjudication on merits. The assessee was thus deprived of a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In our considered opinion, in the interest of justice and fair play, the matter deserves to be restored to the file ... fresh adjudication on merits, after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the I.T.A. No.295/Pat/2025 Johar Gadly Alias Zohar Mohammad Bhai entire issue is remanded back to the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to examine the matter afresh in accordance with law and after

Manoj Dwivedi, Lucknow vs. ITO-3(1), Lucknow

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

ITA 619/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow15 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Vice President), SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)

facts of the case by not allowing the appeal. 2. That the Learned Court erred in law by not providing the reasonable opportunity of being heard through video conferencing even after requesting for the same. 3. That the Learned Court erred in law in the facts of the case

Neelam Gupta, Chandigarh vs. ITO Ward 5(5), Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 314/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 312 To 314/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Neelam Gupta, The Ito, बनाम House No. 41, Ward 5(5), Sector 28-A, Chandigarh Vs. Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aatpg9445J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Ms. Shurti Khandelwal, Adv. For Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca (Virtual Mode) राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr. Dr, सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.01.2026 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.01.2026

For Appellant: Ms. Shurti Khandelwal, Adv. for Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

passed by Ld. AO and then by Worthy CIT(A) deserves to be quashed since the same have been passed without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 5. That the appellant craves leave for any addition, deletion, or amendment in the grounds of appeal on or before ... Assessee in all the appeals is that the orders passed by the CIT(A) are ex-parte orders without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard which is against the principle of natural justice. 4. At the very outset, the ld. Counsel of the Assessee submitted before the Bench that

Neelam Gupta, Chandigarh vs. ITO Ward 5(5), Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 313/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 312 To 314/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Neelam Gupta, The Ito, बनाम House No. 41, Ward 5(5), Sector 28-A, Chandigarh Vs. Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aatpg9445J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Ms. Shurti Khandelwal, Adv. For Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca (Virtual Mode) राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr. Dr, सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.01.2026 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.01.2026

For Appellant: Ms. Shurti Khandelwal, Adv. for Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

passed by Ld. AO and then by Worthy CIT(A) deserves to be quashed since the same have been passed without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 5. That the appellant craves leave for any addition, deletion, or amendment in the grounds of appeal on or before ... Assessee in all the appeals is that the orders passed by the CIT(A) are ex-parte orders without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard which is against the principle of natural justice. 4. At the very outset, the ld. Counsel of the Assessee submitted before the Bench that

Neelam Gupta, Chandigarh vs. ITO Ward 5(5), Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 312/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 312 To 314/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Neelam Gupta, The Ito, बनाम House No. 41, Ward 5(5), Sector 28-A, Chandigarh Vs. Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aatpg9445J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Ms. Shurti Khandelwal, Adv. For Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca (Virtual Mode) राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr. Dr, सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.01.2026 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.01.2026

For Appellant: Ms. Shurti Khandelwal, Adv. for Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

passed by Ld. AO and then by Worthy CIT(A) deserves to be quashed since the same have been passed without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 5. That the appellant craves leave for any addition, deletion, or amendment in the grounds of appeal on or before ... Assessee in all the appeals is that the orders passed by the CIT(A) are ex-parte orders without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard which is against the principle of natural justice. 4. At the very outset, the ld. Counsel of the Assessee submitted before the Bench that

Income Tax Officer, Nahan vs. Ram Swroop, Sangrah

In the result, both the above appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1216/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sachin Doger, CA (Virtual Mode)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

with a direction to confront the Assessing Officer with the additional evidence, call for a remand report/comments, grant due opportunity of being heard to both the parties, and thereafter decide the appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law. 10.4 We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion

Income Tax Officer, Nahan vs. Ram Swroop, Sangrah

In the result, both the above appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1215/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

For Appellant: Shri Sachin Doger, CA (Virtual Mode)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

with a direction to confront the Assessing Officer with the additional evidence, call for a remand report/comments, grant due opportunity of being heard to both the parties, and thereafter decide the appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law. 10.4 We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion

Kotapaduprimary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Prakasam vs. ITO., Ward-1, Ongole

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

ITA 764/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.763 & 764/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20) Kotapadu Primary Vs. Income Tax Officer Agricultural Cooperative Ward – 1 Society, Prakasam Ongole Pan:Aabak5758P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.A C. Subrahamanyam राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Sankar Pandit P, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Two Appeals Are Filed By Kotapadu Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Both Dated 28.02.2025 For The A.Y 2018-19 & A.Y. 2019-20 Respectively. Since Identical Issues Are Involved In These Two Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Page 1 Of 7

For Appellant: C.A C. SubrahamanyamFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandit P, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 249(3)

thereafter proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits, including the additional grounds admitted by this Tribunal, in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 763/Hyd/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes ... thereafter proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits, including the additional grounds admitted by this Tribunal, in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Page 6 of 7 ITA Nos 763 and 764 of 2025 Kotapadu Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society 11. In the result

Kotapadu Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Prakasam vs. ITO., Ward-1, Ongole

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

ITA 763/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.763 & 764/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20) Kotapadu Primary Vs. Income Tax Officer Agricultural Cooperative Ward – 1 Society, Prakasam Ongole Pan:Aabak5758P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.A C. Subrahamanyam राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Sankar Pandit P, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Two Appeals Are Filed By Kotapadu Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Both Dated 28.02.2025 For The A.Y 2018-19 & A.Y. 2019-20 Respectively. Since Identical Issues Are Involved In These Two Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Page 1 Of 7

For Appellant: C.A C. SubrahamanyamFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandit P, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 249(3)

thereafter proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits, including the additional grounds admitted by this Tribunal, in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 763/Hyd/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes ... thereafter proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits, including the additional grounds admitted by this Tribunal, in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Page 6 of 7 ITA Nos 763 and 764 of 2025 Kotapadu Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society 11. In the result

Samudra Commotrade (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.O, NFAC, New Delhi, Delhi

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

ITA 1057/KOL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 68

aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the appeal to him to be decided afresh, who shall allow an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and also grant an opportunity of representing the case and to be heard to the Ld. AO as per rule

Deputy Comissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Dehradun vs. Kamal Jewellers, Dehradun

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 161/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun14 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Sahini, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Poonam Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 68

consider the documents and the submissions made by the Assessee and frame the assessment de-novo in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 10. In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 161/DDN/2025 is partly allowed for statistical purpose. 11. Since

Sh. Devendra Dutt Pant, Haridwar vs. DCIT, Uttarkahand

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 149/DDN/2025[2106-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun14 Jan 2026AY 2106-2017

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 54BSection 54E

also find that in paragraph 5 of the impugned order, the learned CIT(A) has recorded that the assessee was provided with various opportunities of being heard through notices issued on different dates and that the assessee had filed certain details electronically in response to such notices. However, the appellate ... admission regarding factual distinctions from the co-owner's case, and the applicability of judicial precedents. The assessee shall be afforded due opportunity of being heard and shall cooperate by producing all requisite details. ii) Abhijit Subhash Gaikwad vs DCIT (ITAT Pune) reported in 70 SOT 429. 22. The judicial

Jagdish Kumar Mahto, Ranchi vs. Ranchi Commissioner, Ranchi

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

ITA 50/RAN/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi14 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.50/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Jagdish Kumar Mahto….…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant Mukhiya House, Kanke Road Ranchi, Konge, Kanke Road, S.O Jharkhand-834008. [Pan: Acnpm5004H] Vs. Dcit/Acit, Circle-1, Ranchi...................................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 12, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 14, 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 25.1.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”).

Section 147Section 148Section 250

restored to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to examine the issues afresh on merits, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate fully and furnish all necessary supporting documents. In case of failure to comply with

Sael Limited, Faridkot Road Guruharsahai vs. DCIT, CC-1, Ludhiana

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

ITA 704/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashray Sarna, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)

That, the Order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is Ex-parte order that has been passed without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard. 4. That, the grounds of appeal raised with Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is as follows :-  That, assessing officer made wrong additions

Smt. Raj Bala, Chandigarh vs. DCIT/ACIT Circle 1(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 1142/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

allowed, or in the alternative, the matter be restored to the Assessing Officer to reconsider the issue in accordance with law after proper opportunity of being heard. 8. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied on the order of Ld. CIT(A). 9. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused ... contributions are found to have been paid within the due dates mandated under the respective welfare legislations. The assessee shall be afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard and to place all relevant records to substantiate her claim. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

Forum for Indian Neurology Education ( Fine ), Pune vs. CIT(E), Pune

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

ITA 1772/PUN/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraforum For Indian Neurology Education (Fine) Cit(Exemption), Apt No.1 & 2, 1St Floor, Fortune Apartment, Pune Vs. H.No.1206A/13, Shivaji Nagar, Pune – 411005 Pan: Aaatf5430D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas P Bora & Sampada Ingale, Ca Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-01-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora and Sampada Ingale, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

registration granted under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should not be cancelled. The assessee was also given opportunity of being heard vide the said notice. The assessee was specifically informed that in the event of failure to comply by the due date, the application shall be liable