“violation of natural justice”

Natural JusticeAudi Alteram PartemAudi Alteram Partem881 judgments

The decision most relied on for violation of natural justice is Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT (125 ITR 713), cited in 962 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on violation of natural justice

Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT

125 ITR 713 · 1980 · Supreme Court

962

citing judgments

An assessee is entitled to be confronted with evidence used against them and to an opportunity for cross-examination, especially when that evidence is from a third party or a retracted statement. Failure to provide such an opportunity violates the principles of natural justice.

CIT v. Ashwani Gupta

322 ITR 396 · 2010 · High Court

262

citing judgments

Proceedings become fatal if principles of natural justice are violated, such as when seized material is not provided to the assessee or cross-examination of a person whose statement the Assessing Officer relies upon is denied.

Shivsagar Veg Restaurant v. ACIT

317 ITR 433 · 2009 · High Court

202

citing judgments

Orders that are inordinately delayed are liable to be recalled and heard afresh, and the Appellate Tribunal President should frame guidelines for timely disposal of appeals.

Vijay Shrinivasrao Kulkarni v. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal

171 Taxmann.com 696 · 2025 · High Court

200

citing judgments

The ITAT fails to uphold natural justice when it doesn't address an infirmity regarding an assessee being denied a proper opportunity of being heard before the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC dismissed the matter ex-parte.

H.R. Mehta v. ACIT

387 ITR 561 · 2016 · High Court

175

citing judgments

An assessment order is unsustainable if the Assessing Officer denies the assessee the opportunity to cross-examine deponents whose statements are relied upon or fails to provide the material used against them, as this violates principles of natural justice.

H.R. Mehta v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Mumbai

72 Taxmann.com 110 · 2016 · High Court

125

citing judgments

The Assessing Officer must provide the assessee with all material relied upon for an addition or disallowance and an opportunity to cross-examine deponents or witnesses whose statements form the basis of the assessment. Failure to provide such an opportunity violates natural justice and invalidates the addition or disallowance.

Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise

15 SCC 785 · 2016 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

An assessment order is invalid if it relies on statements of third-party witnesses without granting the assessee the opportunity to cross-examine them, as this constitutes a fundamental breach of natural justice. No addition can be sustained if based solely on un-cross-examined statements.

Additional Income-tax Officer v. Ponkunnam Traders

102 ITR 366 · 1976 · High Court

citing judgments

When an Income-tax Officer relies on third-party evidence to make an addition to an assessee's income, the assessee must be given an opportunity to cross-examine those parties. Failure to provide this opportunity violates natural justice and invalidates the addition.

Judgments citing violation of natural justice

Smt. Sudha Loyalka, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 399/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Smt. Sudha Loyalka, Vs Ito, Prop.Tirupati Industries, 2/1, Ward-35(2), Block-41, Singh Sabha Road, New Delhi Shakti Nagar, Delhi-110007. Pan-Aabpl6055D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr.Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Shri Somil Aggarwal, Adv. & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By Shri Narpat Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 01.12.2016 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-12, New Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. 26/15-16 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 18.03.2015 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Her Return Of Income On 27.09.2012, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 3,52,180/-. The Case Of Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny For The Reason “Large Amount Of Sundry Creditors”. Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Trading Of Fabrics & Readymade Garments Under The Name & Style As M/S. Tirupati Industries. The Assessee Has Shown Total Sundry Creditors Of Inr 6,77,21,342/- Which Includes Inr 3,48,88,095/- Under The Title “Retail Creditors Control Account”. In Order To Examine The Genuineness Of These Creditors, Ao Issued Notice U/S 133(6) Of The Act To 27 Parties Out Of Which Notices Issued To 20 Parities Amounting To Inr 2,78,20,495/- Were Returned Back For The Reason “Wrong Address/Incomplete Address/Non-Existed” Etc. The Ao Thereafter, Discussed Each Of The Parties To Whom Notices Were Sent & Reached To The Conclusion That These Parties Are Non-Existent & Made The Addition Of Inr 3,50,94,758/- As Bogus Creditors.

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37Section 69C

provide any third-party verification to substantiate the liabilities. (ii) On Non-Compliance Despite Sufficient Opportunity: Contrary to the assessee's allegations of violation of natural justice, the record shows that repeated and specific opportunities were provided to furnish confirmations and correct postal addresses. Notices under section 133(6) were

Vision Infracon (India) Pvt Ltd, Rajkot vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)(5), Rajkot

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

ITA 458/RJT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura,Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 147

HMAHCHAN AAS AHL, AAP STAINS AAC | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL

Gol Damjibhai Nathabhai (HUF), Amreli vs. ITO, Ward -3(1)(4), Amreli

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

ITA 452/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

MAPCaN asp Wale aAMaAnlS AaHle | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI

Rasiklal Meghjibhai Patel, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2)(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 904/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144

AATPCIA AH ASfApxworAaHle AAS AAP | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI

Ranmalbhai Palabhai Chhuchhar, Jamnagar, Gujarat vs. Assessing Officer, Jamnagar, Gujarat

In the result, both the appeals of the same assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 502/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Ms. Madhvi Khetiya, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 147

MAPCaN asp Wale aAMaAnlS AaHle | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI

Ajay Kumar, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Delhi

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

ITA 1400/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2015-16 Ajay Kumar S/O Shri K.P. Vs. Assistant Commissioner Singh R/O A-302 Amarpali Of Income Tax Circle 1 Apartment , Sector -3 New Delhi Vashali Ghaziabad 201001 Pan No.Ahnpk3721A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 68

following grounds of appeal :- The appellant disputes the addition made by the AO and sustained by CIT(A) on the following grounds: 1. Violation of Natural Justice - Ex Parte Orders Both the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] passed ex parte orders without affording

Raymond Vishal, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-1(2)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 792/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 250Section 271A

sent to the registered email. 4. Thus, there was procedural irregularity, depriving the assessee of opportunity to present his case, which amounts to violation of natural justice. In support, the assessee filed annexures including (a) death certificate of his father, (b) correct email ID copy as per Form

The DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad vs. Shaligram Infra Projects LLP, Ahmedabad

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 291/AHD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

also argued that no cross- examination of such parties was afforded despite specific requests, vitiating the additions on the ground of violation of natural justice. 21.1 The AR further stated that even assuming without admitting that some on-money was received, the same was part of business turnover and could

Shaligram Infra Projects LLP ( Ltd. Liability Partnership), Ahmedabad vs. The JCIT (OSD), Central Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 233/AHD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarit(Ss)A No.167/Ahd/2021 Asstt.Year : 2017-18 & Asst.Year : 2018-19 Shaligram Infra Projects Llp Vs. The Jcit (Osd) 4Th Floor, Office No.401-402 Central Cir.2(2) B/H. Dishman House Ahmedabad. Opp: Sankalp Grace Ii, Ambli Ahmedabad. Pan: Acpfs 7047 A It(Ss)A No.194,195 & 196/Ahd/2021 Asstt.Year : 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 & Asst.Year : 2018-19 The Jcit (Osd) Vs. Shaligram Infra Projects Llp Central Cir.2(2) 4Th Floor, Office No.401-402 Ahmedabad. B/H. Dishman House Opp: Sankalp Grace Ii, Ambli Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1(4), Bengaluru vs. Sri Devaraj Urs Educational Trust for Backward Classes (Regd), Kolar

ITA 903/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan, CIT (DR)

Section 131(1)Section 132Section 132(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

M/S. Sri. Devaraj Urs Educational Trust for Backward Classes(Regd), Kolar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

ITA 1561/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 131(1)Section 132Section 132(4)

third-party notes) falls apart. Moreover, non-supply of those statements denies the assessee the opportunity to cross- examine, which is a violation of natural justice. 14.11 We further notice glaring contradictions in the versions of witnesses relied by the revenue which are as follows: « The cashier admits preparing

M/S. Sri Devaraj Urs Educational Trust for Backward Classes (Regd), Kolar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

ITA 1559/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan, CIT (DR)

Section 131(1)Section 132Section 132(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru vs. Devaraj Urs Educational Trust for Backward Classes, Kolar

ITA 1549/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan, CIT (DR)

Section 131(1)Section 132Section 132(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru vs. Devaraj Urs Educational Trust for Backward Classes, Kolar

ITA 1548/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan, CIT (DR)

Section 131(1)Section 132Section 132(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru vs. Sri Devaraj Urs Educational Trust for Backward Classes, Kolar

ITA 1547/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan, CIT (DR)

Section 131(1)Section 132Section 132(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

M/S. Sri Devaraj Urs Educational Trust, Kolar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

ITA 1060/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan, CIT (DR)

Section 131(1)Section 132Section 132(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

Shantha Alias Shanthamma, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

ITA 465/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Deepak, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan M, CIT (DR)

Section 143(2)Section 153C

verification. The AO neither issued notice under section 143(2) of the Act nor acknowledged the return filed, rendering the entire assessment process violative of natural justice. 32. On the issue of non-production of the satisfaction note and seized materials, the Id. AR submits that despite repeated requests

Microsoft Corporation (India) Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT (16) (1) Delhi, Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1862/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआअसं.1862/िद"ी/2022 (िन.व. 2017-18) Microsoft Corporation (India) P. Ltd., 807, New Delhi House, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi 110001 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacm-5586-C बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 16(1), Central Revenue Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Ip Estate, Delhi अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : S/Shri Nageswar Rao, (Through Vc) & Parth, Advocates "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit- Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 04/09/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 04/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 30.06.2022, Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri Nageswar Rao, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submitted At The Outset That, At This Stage He Is Confining His Submissions To Ground No. 1 Of Appeal

For Appellant: S/Shri Nageswar Rao, (Through VC) &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िद"ी पीठ “आई ”, िद"ी "ी महावीरिसंह, उपा"" (तृतीयसद"), "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी "जेश कुमार िसंह, लेखाकार

The Karnataka Multipurpose Souharda Sahakari Niyamit, Chikodi vs. E Assessment, Nipnai

ITA 122/PAN/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji03 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 122/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Karnataka Multipurpose Souharda Sahakari Niyamit. Bhagyalaxmi Nagar, Chikodi, Belgavi-591201. Pan : Aaaat4824A . . . . . . . Appellant V/S National Faceless E-Asstt Centre, Delhi . . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Chetan Chougule [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/09/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Impugns Din & Order Itba/Apl/S/250/2023-24/1057730634(1) Dt. 06/11/2023 Passed By Addl./Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals-1, Coimbatore, [‘Ld. Nfac’] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Rectification Order Dt. 28/05/2021 Passed U/S 154 Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru [‘Ld. Cpc’] Anent To Assessment Year 2018-19 [‘Ay’].

For Appellant: Mr Chetan Chougule [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 253(3)

situation, the appellant assessee came in present appeal with a prayer to remand the matter back to the file of Ld. NFAC for violation of natural justice. 5. Admittedly, the appellant received order of rectification on 28/05/2021 and was undisputedly under obligation to file first appeal thereagainst within 30 days

Markuli Ramachandra Vani, Hassan vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Hassan

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

ITA 1366/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Ashok Parmar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 250(6)

there was no medical evidence to explain the delay. The present case stands on a different footing. 8. Considering the medical reasons, the violation of natural justice, and non-compliance with section 250(6) of the Act, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore