“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

Surabi Educational and Charitable Trust, Dindigul vs. ACIT, Exemptions, Coimbatore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for AY 2018-19 and AY

ITA 2761/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2759, 2760, 2761, 2762, 2763, 2764 & 2765/Chny/2025 िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-21

For Appellant: Mr. Richard Joseph, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Latchana, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270A

Accordingly, we are remitting the appeal pertaining to 2020-21 also back to A.O to be considered on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 9. We have while deciding the quantum appeal for AY 2020-21 has remitted the appeal back

Surabi Educational and Charitable Trust, Dindigul vs. ACIT, Exemptions, Coimbatore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for AY 2018-19 and AY

ITA 2759/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2759, 2760, 2761, 2762, 2763, 2764 & 2765/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Surabi Educational & Charitable Trust, S7/2 Prnp Complex, Kumaran Thiru Nagar, Silavathur Road, Dindigul – 624 005. Pan: Aafts 0804D (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषण की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement Per Padmavathy.S, A.M: The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Tax (Exemptions), Coimbatore. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Mr. Richard Joseph, Advocate Ms. Latchana, Jcit 16.12.2025 07.01.2026 आदेश / Order These Appeals By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short "Cit(A)") Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") For Assessment Years (Ay) 2018-19 & 2020-21. The Order Of The Cit(A) Is Emanating From The Order Of The A.O Passed U/S. 143(3) & The Penalty Orders U/S. 270A, 271Aac(1), 272A(1)(D) & 272A(1)(C) Of The Act. For The Purpose Of Adjudication, We Will First Consider The Appeal Filed For A.Y 2018-19.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270A

Madival Community Foundation, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Bangalore

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

ITA 1778/BANG/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : Na

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT-DR

Section 12A

Apart from that Section 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) of the Act mandates that before passing any adverse order a reasonable opportunity of being heard should be granted. The Ld.CIT(E) based on the documents furnished by the assessee had straightaway rejected the said application without seeking any explanation from ... restore this issue to the file of the Ld.CIT(E) for deciding the issue on merits after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and also after considering the explanations offered by the assessee. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Sunni Hanfi Mashayaki Momin Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 31(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7186/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () &

justice, the appeals may be remanded to the file of the Ld.AO for fresh adjudication on merits, by granting the assessee one final opportunity of being heard. - 4.1. Having considered the above undisputed facts, and while condoning the delay, we are also mindful of the conduct of the assessee ... remanded to the file of the Ld.AO for de novo consideration, in accordance with law, after affording the assessee proper and effective opportunity of being heard. The Ld.AO shall carry out necessary verification in respect of the evidences furnished by the assesse in accordance with law. The Ld.AO shall pass

Sunni Hanfi Mashayaki Momin Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 31(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7185/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

justice, the appeals may be remanded to the file of the Ld.AO for fresh adjudication on merits, by granting the assessee one final opportunity of being heard. 4.1. Having considered the above undisputed facts, and while condoning the delay, we are also mindful of the conduct of the assessee ... novo consideration, in 4 I.T.A. No. 7185 & 7186/Mum/2025 Sunni Hanfi Mashayaki Momin Trust accordance with law, after affording the assessee proper and effective opportunity of being heard. The Ld.AO shall carry out necessary verification in respect of the evidences furnished by the assesse in accordance with law. The Ld.AO shall

Kaishar Interiors Private Limtied, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 4(2)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly Ground No.16 raised by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5665/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Kukreja &For Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

made by the Assessing Officer with the directions of the Assessing Officer to adjudicate issue afresh after granting the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Assessing Officer would be at liberty to carry out inquiry/investigation (including issuance of notice under Section 133(6) of the Act) as Assessing

Seema Pappu Yadav, Andheri West vs. Income Tax Officer, Kautilya Bhavan

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

ITA 5483/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 144Section 148Section 250

matter to the file of the Ld. AO. It is imperative that the Ld. AO provides the assessee with a fair and adequate opportunity of being heard during the reassessment proceeding. Any evidence or explanation submitted by the assessee in her defence must be admitted and considered

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Trimaster Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 955/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2021-22 Assistant Commissioner Of Trimaster Private Limited, Income Tax, Room No.192A, 222, Okhla Industrial Estate, First Floor, C.R. Building, Ito, Vs New Delhi-110020 Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaacn0138P Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.119/Del/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.955/Del/2025 ) [Assessment Year: 2021-22 Trimaster Private Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of Income 222, Okhla Industrial Estate, Tax, Room No.192A, First Floor, New Delhi-110020 Vs C.R. Building, Ito, Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaacn0138P Assessee Revenue Assessee By Shri Nitini Kumar Sharma, Ca Revenue By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 07.01.2026

Section 10ASection 115BSection 143(3)Section 32Section 32ASection 33ASection 35Section 35ASection 35C

directed to conduct a limited verification of the impugned details qua allowance of loss in favour of the assessee, while giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and by passing a speaking order in accordance with law. The assessee shall be required to cooperate and comply with

Berger Becker Coatings Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 3846/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalberger Becker Coatings Private Vs Income Tax Department Limited, 19 Dda, Commercial Dcit Circle 4(2), C. R. Complex, Kailsah Colony Building, New Delhi Extension, Zamrudpur, New Delhi Pan: Aabcb8159K Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Nitin Sharma, Ca Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 05/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 07/01/2026 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(3)

Berger Becker Coatings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO 6. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has provided no opportunity of being heard to the Assessee and in violation of principals of natural justice, dismissed the appeal of the Assessee. Thus, sought for allowing the Appeal ... with a direction to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the Appeal afresh on its merits in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 9. In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court

Neetal Relan, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

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

ITA 3038/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

sheet, a copy of the draft assessment order, covering letter filed in the relevant miscellaneous records folder. Even, it is noted that due opportunity of being heard should be given to the assessee by the supervisory officer giving approval to the proposed block assessment, at least one month before

Neetal Relan, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

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

ITA 3037/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

Giesecke and Devrient India Pvt Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT (OSD), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1428/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 119Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144B(8)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

which such direction is received. Sub-section (13) also provides that the Assessing Officer can complete the assessment without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee. This means that the moment the Assessing Officer receives the directions under sub-section (5), he has to straightaway complete

Spectris Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3742/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shriyogesh Kumar Us & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3742/Del/2015 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम Spectris Technologies P. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, 201-B, Second Floor, Vs. Ward-9(1), Park Centra, Sector-30, New Delhi. Gurgaon. Pan No.Aagcs6654R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250Section 92

Accordingly, with these directions the issue of working out ALP is restored to the file of the Ld.TPO/AO. Needless to say, adequate opportunity of being heard would be given to the assessee and the comparables etc. provided by him will be fairly examined in the light of extant provisions

Swami Vivekanand Seva Trust, Jamshedpur vs. Commission of Income Tax, Exemption Circle, Patna

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

ITA 80/RAN/2025[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026AY 2024-2025

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Ranjan, CIT-DR

issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for readjudication afresh after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 06/01/2026

Jharkhand State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Jsfc Bhawan vs. Ptn-C-(51)(1), Ranchi

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

ITA 78/RAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayjharkhand State Food & Civil Dcit/Acit, Supplies Corporation Limited, Circle-1, Vs. 1St Floor, Near Haj House, Kadru, Ranchi. Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaccj 5877 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Assessing Officer, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of Assessing Officer for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. Considering the submissions of the ld. CIT- Departmental Representative, a cost of ₹ 50,000/- is levied on the assessee, 2 Jharkhand State Food

Pradeep Kumar Narsaria, Ranchi vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Ranchi

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

ITA 65/RAN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaypradeep Kumar Narsaria, I.T.O., Opp. Income Tax Colony, H.B. Road, Ward-2(1), Vs. Lalpur, Ranchi-834001. Ranchi. Pan No. Aakpn 8455 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of Assessing Officer for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. All the legal issues are left open. 7. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order

Prativa Mohanty, Jamshedpur vs. DCIT, Circle -1, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 137/RAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: the Id. AO to substantiate her case. This being so, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the Id. AO for readjudication afresh after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard, subject to a payment of cost of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) by the assessee to the Jharkhand Income Tax Bar Association, Ranchi – 834001, within sixty days from the date of this order and receipt of the same would be produced before the Id. AO at th

For Appellant: Shri Vinay Kumar Jalan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ram Chandra Marndi, Sr.DR

justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld. AO for readjudication afresh after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard, subject to a payment of cost of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) by the assessee to the Jharkhand Income Tax Bar Association

Santosh Kumar Chourasia, Dhanbad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2 Dhanbad, Dhanbad

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

ITA 132/RAN/2025[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026AY 2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ram Chandra Marndi, Sr.DR

issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the Id. CIT(A) for readjudication afresh after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the Id. CIT(A) in the readjudication proceedings, positively. 5. In the result, appeal

Paras Nath Digamber Jain Uchch Vidyalaya, Giridih vs. CIT, Exemption, Patna

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

ITA 102/RAN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Ranjan, CIT-DR

furnished the details before the ld. CIT(E). This being so, the ld. CIT(E) for readjudication afresh after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court

M/S Anjeneya Ispat Ltd., Saraikela vs. Deputy Commissione of Income Tax, Circele-1, Jamshedpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 75/RAN/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.75/Ran/2022 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Anjeneya Ispat Ltd.…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant 29, Rain Basera, Sanjay Nagar Colony, Adityapur, Saraikela, Jharkhand- 831013. [Pan: Aagca1031N] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Jamshedpur.….....…..…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 06, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Jamshedpur (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 25.09.2017 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 2019–20 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹62,64,116. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny. During The Relevant Previous Year, A Survey Operation Under Section 133A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Was Conducted At The Business Premises Of The Assessee On 16.02.2019. Subsequently, Statutory Notices Under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued. In Response Thereto, The Assessee Appeared From Time To Time & Furnished Various Details & Documents As Called For. The Same Were Examined & Discussed By The Assessing Officer During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings. During

Section 10(23)Section 133ASection 133A(3)Section 145ASection 14ASection 250Section 40Section 69Section 69C

allowance, wherein the CIT(A) changed the applicable provision from section 14A to section 40(a)(ia) without issuing any notice or granting opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4.1 The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that the CIT(A) erred in enhancing the addition by making ... error in changing the applicable section from section 14A to section 40(a)(ia) without issuing any show-cause notice or granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Such an action is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice and, therefore, the disallowance so sustained