audi alteram partem — 490 judgments | BharatTax

BISHNUPRIYA BIJAYCHANDRA MAHANTY,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

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

ITA 4477/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Bishnupriya Bijaychandra Mahanty Ito, Ward 28(1)(1), Mumbai 204 Plot 13/A Wing Siddhivinayak It-Office, Vashi Railway Vs. Chs, Sector 6, Ghansoli, Navi Station Building, Mumbai 400701, Navi Mumbai- 400703 Authroised Person Add: 218, Ratna High Street, Naranpura, Ahmedabad- 380013 Pan No. Btdpm 7308 A Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Pritesh L. Shah (Virtually

Section 1Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 69

ITAT Rules. under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules. 5.3 Adhering to the principles of Adhering to the principles of Audi Alteram Partem Audi Alteram Partem, the Revenue must be afforded an opportunity to verify these fresh claims. must be afforded an opportunity to verify these fresh claims. must

M/S CARE INDIA SOLUTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purpose

ITA 7439/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

For Appellant: Sh. Pratik Arora, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Jain, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 25Section 250

request filed by the\nAppellant seeking additional time for submission and thereby\npassing the order in haste, thus violating the fundamental\nprinciple of audi alteram partem.\n3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in\nnot passing a speaking order, thus violating principles of natural ... request filed by the\nAppellant seeking additional time for submission and thereby\npassing the order in haste, thus violating the fundamental\nprinciple of audi alteram partem.\n3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on\nfacts in not passing a speaking order, thus violating principles

M/S CARE INDIA SOLUTION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purpose

ITA 7438/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

For Appellant: Sh. Pratik Arora, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Jain, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 25Section 250

request filed by the\nAppellant seeking additional time for submission and thereby\npassing the order in haste, thus violating the fundamental\nprinciple of audi alteram partem.\n3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in\nnot passing a speaking order, thus violating principles of natural ... request filed by the\nAppellant seeking additional time for submission and thereby\npassing the order in haste, thus violating the fundamental\nprinciple of audi alteram partem.\n3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on\nfacts in not passing a speaking order, thus violating principles

M/S CARE INDIA SOLUTION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purpose

ITA 7437/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Pratik Arora, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Jain, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 25Section 250

request filed by the\nAppellant seeking additional time for submission and thereby\npassing the order in haste, thus violating the fundamental\nprinciple of audi alteram partem.\n3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not\npassing a speaking order, thus violating principles of natural ... request filed by the\nAppellant seeking additional time for submission and thereby\npassing the order in haste, thus violating the fundamental\nprinciple of audi alteram partem.\n3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on\nfacts in not passing a speaking order, thus violating principles

THE TAMIL NADU DR AMBEDKAR LAW UNIVERSITY,CHENNIA vs. INCOME- TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS) WARD 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 833/CHNY/2026[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:833/Chny/2026 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Tamil Nadu Dr. The Income Tax Officer Ambedkar Law University, Vs. (Exemptions), No.5, Poompozhil Campus, Ward 1, Dr. Dgs Dinakaran Salai, Chennai. Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aadat 3528N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Ann Mary Baby, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.03.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Pune Order Dated 27.01.2026 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2019-20 :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Shri Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Ms. Ann Mary Baby, CIT

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 154(3)Section 250

being an arbitrary action which offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Further, we are of the view that principles of "audi alteram partem" (the right to be hear) lies at the very heart of procedural fairness. No one can be condemned without being given an opportunity to present

RAJKUMAR JETWANI,AGRA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 1, AGRA, AGRA

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

ITA 126/AGR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year : 2017-18 Rajkumar Jetwani V Pcit-1, 203, 2Nd Floor, Anant Vilas, Mauja Agra Bodla, Agra 282 007 Pan : Aavpj6200C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

principles of natural justice have many facets. In the instant case in hand, the first, facet of the principles of natural justice is "audi alteram partem", i.e. as to whether reasonable opportunity of hearing was afforded to the assessee in compliance of section

PRINGALKUMAR PRAVEENBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the asessee is allowed

ITA 2365/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Umedsingh Bhati & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT. DR

Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69C

from pillar to post seeking justice. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is against the basic principles of justice, i.e Audi alteram partem and for this reason alone, the order we hold is not sustainable and is set aside. The addition made of purchase amounting to Rs.9

WALIA AGNI INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO WARD-10(1), PUNE

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

ITA 1534/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Ninad KulkarniFor Respondent: Smt. Shraddha Nichal

Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

passed the order u/s 250 without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard and thus violating the principles of 'audi alteram partem. 3. That, on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty

THE SAMASTIPUR DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,SAMASTIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DARBHANGA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 508/PAT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna04 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) provided various opportunities to the assessee as per para 4 of his order, 7 times opportunities were provided but the assessee did not respond any of the notices. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) after relying on various judgments decided the issue on 10.12.2022 on the basis of material available on record and upheld the order of the AO. 4. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the

For Respondent: Sh. Manab Adak, JCIT

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250

order without affording a reasonable and effective opportunity of abeing heard to the appellant. The principles of natural justice, particularly RBILIc. sewes-0011 audi alteram partem (no one should be condemned 2 The Samastipur District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. unheard), were grossly violated, thereby vitiating the entire appellate proceedings

AZIZ SULTANALI LALANI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX WARD MUM-W-(199)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 5536/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 68

mere procedural lapse. The right of hearing, including through video conferencing in faceless proceedings, is an integral facet of the principle of audi alteram partem, which constitutes the very foundation of fair adjudication. This safeguard cannot be diluted or rendered illusory, especially where the assessee has demonstrated due diligence

AZIZ SULTANALI LALANI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX WARD MUM-W-199(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 5535/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 68

mere procedural lapse. The right of hearing, including through video conferencing in faceless proceedings, is an integral facet of the principle of audi alteram partem, which constitutes the very foundation of fair adjudication. This safeguard cannot be diluted or rendered illusory, especially where the assessee has demonstrated due diligence

MOHAN JEJUMAL THADANI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 17(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 3269/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika Agarwal, (virtually appeared) &For Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat,(Sr. DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

record must be placed before him for his information, comment and\ncriticism. That is all that is meant by the doctrine of audi alteram partem,\nthat no party should be condemned unheard. No natural justice requires that\nthere should be a kind of a formal cross-examination. Formal cross-\nexamination ... nthe technical cross-examination in a Court of law in the witness-box.”\nITAT has further held that, “As regards the dictum ‘audi alteram partem' the\nassessee's basic contention was that the statements of witnesses and\nmaterials which were relied upon by the Assessing Officer in the assessment\norder

STREAM SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 7(1),, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1936/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144BSection 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 151ASection 250

denied procedural fairness, as the trading/resource information and brokers' statements relied upon were never furnished nor cross-examination allowed, violating the principle of "audi alteram partem". Further, even if reopening was based on information received, the Assessing Officer was duty-bound to conduct independent enquiries under Sections 133(6)/131

UTTAR BAHRTIIYA EDUCATION SOCIETY,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7652/MUM/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 10Section 250

passed without granting an effective opportunity of hearing, the order itself records Present for the appellant Not Applicable. The dismissal in limine violates audi alteram partem and is unsustainable. 4. Merits Section 10 23C iiiab: Without prejudice to above Grounds, the authorities below erred in taxing gross receipts ... passed without granting an effective opportunity of hearing, the order itself records Present for the appellant Not Applicable. The dismissal in limine violates audi alteram partem and is unsustainable. 4. Non admission of crucial evidence: The Ld. CIT A erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the material evidence

UTTAR BHARTIYA EDUCATION SOCIETY,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7651/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 10Section 250

passed without granting an effective opportunity of hearing, the order itself records Present for the appellant Not Applicable. The dismissal in limine violates audi alteram partem and is unsustainable. 4. Merits Section 10 23C iiiab: Without prejudice to above Grounds, the authorities below erred in taxing gross receipts ... passed without granting an effective opportunity of hearing, the order itself records Present for the appellant Not Applicable. The dismissal in limine violates audi alteram partem and is unsustainable. 4. Non admission of crucial evidence: The Ld. CIT A erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the material evidence