“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

V S Dempo Holdings Private Limited, Panaji-Goa vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle One

ITA 146/PAN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 146/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2019-20 V. S. Dempo Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Dempo House, Campal, Panaji, Goa-403001. Pan : Aaace4220P . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Rohan Deshpande [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 12/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/08/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Impugns Din & Order Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1074798262(1) Dt. 21/03/2025 Passed By Addl./Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals-1, Hyderabad, [‘Ld. Nfac’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Dt. 25/10/2020 Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru [‘Ld. Cpc’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2019-20 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: Mr Rohan Deshpande [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 249Section 250

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 assessee received the order of summary assessment on 02/11/2020 and was under obligation to file first appeal thereagainst within

Lok Mangal Sarvangi Trust, Bharuch vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1324/SRT/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Aug 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)(iii)

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT

Juhi Bhandari, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle (Intl Tax), Jaipur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 234/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT (through VC)

Section 144C(5)Section 153CSection 69

dumb documents". 4. No Opportunity of Cross-Examination: Statements of third parties were relied on without giving a chance for cross-examination. 5. Violation of Natural Justice: Only 1 day given to respond to enhancement notice; DRP ignored detailed replies and adjournment requests. 6. DRP Overreach: Directed addition of cheque

Urveen Shivprasad Vyas, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1119/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-2019 Urveen Shivprasad Vyas The Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) 2, Dev Vihar-H Vs. Ahmedabad. B/H. Vrundavan Bungalows Thaltej-Shilaj Road, Ahmedabad. Pan : Ablpv 7563 R (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Prithu Parimal, Advocate : Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri Prithu Parimal, Advocate

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

sound reasoning renders the reopening proceedings fundamentally defective and legally untenable. 7. It is submitted that the Ld. AO further committed a grave violation of natural justice principles by neither supplying the material relied upon nor clearly enumerating such material in the impugned order. Such omission constitutes a denial

Kanaiyalal Labhubhai Narola, Surat vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, (2), Surat

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

ITA 816/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Buayananda Pruseth

Section 131Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

witness (ii) the validity of addition of Rs.3,00,00,000 u/s 68/69A of the Act, (iii) the procedural irregularities and violation of natural justice and (iv) the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. As discussed earlier, the AO made the addition of Rs.3

Shree Karni Mata Trust, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 1214/KOL/2025[----]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 5Section 80G

issue (absence of irrevocability clause) was factually incorrect and without considering the documents already submitted or providing a fair opportunity to respond, in violation of natural justice. 4. That the appellant craves to leave, add, amend or adduce any of the grounds of appeal during the course of appellate proceedings

Shree Karni Mata Trust, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemptiion), Kolkata

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

ITA 1213/KOL/2025[----]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 5Section 80G

Ahamad Bin Mubarak Chauose, Nanded vs. ITO, Ward (1), Nanded

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

ITA 1545/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1545/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ahamad Bin Mubarak V The Income Tax Officer, Chauose, S Ward-(1), Nanded. H.No.1-7-1349, Peerburhan Nagar, Nanded – 431506. Maharashtra. Pan: Alzpc8261D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ajay D. Kulkarni – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 07/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/08/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(A), Kanpur Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 18.10.2024 For The A.Y.2012-13 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153(2)Section 250Section 44A

without appreciating that the Appellant had filed written submissions manually on 14/02/2018 and 01/01/2020, and the non-consideration of these submission is a violation of natural justice. 8. That the CIT(A) failed to appreciate the incorrectness of system data regarding communication windows and failed to verify the record

Bhargavi Sajja, Telangana vs. ACIT., Central Circle 2(1), Telangana

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are

ITA 773/HYD/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

For Appellant: Shri Satish Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR

Section 115Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 153CSection 156Section 274

request, there was no obligation on the part of the Ld. AO to provide an opportunity for cross-examination. Accordingly, the allegation of violation of natural justice does not survive. 9. On the issue of validity of proceedings under section 153C of the Act, the Ld. DR drew our attention ... motu. The law is clear that the obligation arises only upon a specific demand. In view of the above, the plea of violation of natural justice is rejected. 11. On the second issue relating to the validity of jurisdiction under section 153C of the Act and evidentiary value

Brijesh Kumar, West Champaran vs. Dc/Ac Circle-1, Muzaffarpur

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

ITA 77/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 250Section 69A

evidences treating them as additional evidences and simply on the basis of A.O.'s order, dismissed the appeal which is again a violation of natural justice. 4. In view of the ad hoc 10% expenditure in contract work disallowed Rs. 61,19,226/-, forfeiture of deduction claimed under Chapter

Babubhai Joitaram Patel, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT/ACIT Cent-1, RKT, Rajkot

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 23/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.15&23/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Babubhai Joitram Patel, Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax/ 9 Suvas Colony St Xaviers High Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, School Road. Gujarat-380 014 Central Circle –1, Rajkot, Income Tax Officer, Amruta Estate Building, M.G. Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Abdpp5355 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Pramod Popat, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 14/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Popat, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. (DR)

Section 153CSection 250

assessment order must be quashed. ITA Nos. 15 & 23/RJT/2025 A.Ys 18-19 & 19-20 Babubhai J Patel Ground-2 Ex-parte Assessment and Violation of Natural Justice The Ld. AO erred in law and on facts of the case in proceeding ex-parte and passing the assessment order based

Babubhai Joitaram Patel, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT/ACIT Cent-1 RKT, Rajkot

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 15/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Popat, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. (DR)

Section 153CSection 250

Mahesh Kumar Jain, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle - 3(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 813/HYD/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad01 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.813/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Shri Mahesh Kumar Jain, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Central Circle 3(3), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan:Afhpm6964R (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri C.Raj Kumar, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/07/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 01/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Mahesh Kumar Jain (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 24.04.2025 For The A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri C.Raj Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR

Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 69C

during the course of assessment proceedings. In the absence of such request, the assessee cannot now take the plea of violation of natural justice. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the assessment order on this count. Further, we also note that the assessee has not disputed the fact of having

Moraj Group Hospotalities Inc, Navi Mumbai vs. Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2047/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri. Pradip Kapasi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

wrongful addition, and that the said addition is disputed in an appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT. GROUND NO. 2: SERIOUS VIOLATION OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND OF S.274 AND S. 275 (a) The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal without affording an opportunity

Dosti Realty Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6128/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)

additional grounds of appeal and additional evidence 3 Dosti Realty Ltd. Assessment Year 2015-16 without even referring to those submissions, is in violation of natural justice and such arbitrary order needs to be quashed. 4. Addition u/s. 14A r.w.r 8D of Rs. 92,72,993/- (wrongly stated

Yogesh Ravindra Mathuria, Mumbai vs. DCIT 42(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2685/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Viraj Mehta, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. D/R

Delhi [hereinafter ‘the CIT(A)’] pertaining to AY 2010-11. 2. The grievance of the assessee reads as under:- “1) Ground No. 1: Violation of Natural Justice On facts and circumstances, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the order without providing proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Said

Mitesh Singhania, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2) Raipur, Central Revenue Building, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 410/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.410/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Mitesh Singhania Singhania Bhawan, Subhas Road, Near Telghani Naka, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Avops1474P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur (C.G) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154Section 194DSection 80C(5)

adjustment so made. 2.2 Since no reasoned query was given the appellant was prevented from countering the addition proposed therefore it was violation of Natural Justice. 3: The DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru, erred in law and facts of the case in relying upon the information available on 26AS statement

The Kotla Bhari Milk Producers Society Ltd., Khanna vs. ITO, Khanna

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 381/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Parveen Jindal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 249(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(b)

adjudicate on the substantive grounds raised in Form-35, including the denial of the Section 80P deduction and the alleged violation of natural justice, as the appeal was rejected on procedural grounds. The Ld. CIT(A) emphasized a strict interpretation of the limitation period, declining to adopt a liberal approach

Late Kulprakash Bhardwaj Through Legal Heir Kartikeya Bhardwaj, Centre Point Hotel, Dharamshala, Kangra vs. PCIT-1, Chanigarh, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1241/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Deshpande, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, CIT, D.R

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 68

Delhi High Court in Savita Kapila (supra), wherein it was held that continuation of proceedings without impleading the legal heir is a violation of natural justice and renders the order null in law. 10.2 Furthermore, it is a matter of record that the assessee had already challenged the assessment order

DCIT Circle-5(1), Kolkata vs. Zen Stock and Share Broking Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

ITA 1295/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: The O/O Pcit-2, Kolkata

Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH”, KOLKATA SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER L.T.A