← All Phrases

“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
91
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
66
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

Ankit Agarwal, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle 3(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 304/HYD/2025[2018-2019]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad14 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.301 To 303/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years:2018-19 To 2020-21) Kiran Devi Agarwal, Hyderabad. Pan:Adopa7925R Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.304 To 306/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years:2018-19 To 2020-21) Ankit Agarwal, Hyderabad. Pan:Bnlpa0543D Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessees By: Shri Sharad Chandra Toshniwal, C.A. राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing: 09/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 14/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench : These Appeals Are Filed By The Captioned Assessees, Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)") For The A.Ys.2018-19 To 2020-21 Respectively. These Six Appeals Of The Assessees Involve Identical Issues Arising Out Of Similar Facts & Are Therefore Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Consistency. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 14 Days In Some Appeals & 15 Days In Others. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petitions Along With Affidavits, Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. After Going Through The Condonation Petitions & The Material On Record & Considering The Submissions Of The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. Ar") & The Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. Dr”), In The Interest Of Substantial Justice, We Condone The Delay In Filing All The Appeals & Admit Them For Adjudication On Merits.

For Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, SR-DR
Section 132(4)Section 153C

case vitiates the assessment proceedings and renders the assessment order unsustainable in law. Accordingly, we quash the assessment order on the ground of violation of natural justice, i.e., denial of cross-examination. As we have allowed the appeal of the assessee on this legal ground, we do not propose

Kiran Devi Agarwal, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle 3(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 303/HYD/2025[2020-2021]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad14 Jul 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.301 To 303/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years:2018-19 To 2020-21) Kiran Devi Agarwal, Hyderabad. Pan:Adopa7925R (Appellant) Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad. (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.304 To 306/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years:2018-19 To 2020-21) Ankit Agarwal, Hyderabad. Pan:Bnlpa0543D (Appellant) Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad. (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessees By: Shri Sharad Chandra Toshniwal, C.A. राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing: 09/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 14/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench : These Appeals Are Filed By The Captioned Assessees, Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)") For The A.Ys.2018-19 To 2020-21 Respectively. These Six Appeals Of The Assessees Involve Identical Issues Arising Out Of Similar Facts & Are Therefore Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Consistency. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 14 Days In Some Appeals & 15 Days In Others. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petitions Along With Affidavits, Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. After Going Through The Condonation Petitions & The Material On Record & Considering The Submissions Of The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. Ar") & The Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. Dr"), In The Interest Of Substantial Justice, We Condone The Delay In Filing All The Appeals & Admit Them For Adjudication On Merits.

For Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, SR-DR
Section 132(4)Section 153C

case vitiates the assessment proceedings and renders the assessment order unsustainable in law. Accordingly, we quash the assessment order on the ground of violation of natural justice, i.e., denial of cross-examination. As we have allowed the appeal of the assessee on this legal ground, we do not propose

Kiran Devi Agarwal, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle 3(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 302/HYD/2025[2019-2020]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad14 Jul 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.301 To 303/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years:2018-19 To 2020-21) Kiran Devi Agarwal, Hyderabad. Pan:Adopa7925R Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.304 To 306/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years:2018-19 To 2020-21) Ankit Agarwal, Hyderabad. Pan:Bnlpa0543D Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessees By: Shri Sharad Chandra Toshniwal, C.A. राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing: 09/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 14/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench : These Appeals Are Filed By The Captioned Assessees, Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)") For The A.Ys.2018-19 To 2020-21 Respectively. These Six Appeals Of The Assessees Involve Identical Issues Arising Out Of Similar Facts & Are Therefore Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Consistency. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 14 Days In Some Appeals & 15 Days In Others. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petitions Along With Affidavits, Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. After Going Through The Condonation Petitions & The Material On Record & Considering The Submissions Of The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. Ar") & The Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. Dr"), In The Interest Of Substantial Justice, We Condone The Delay In Filing All The Appeals & Admit Them For Adjudication On Merits.

For Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, SR-DR
Section 132(4)Section 153C

case vitiates the assessment proceedings and renders the assessment order unsustainable in law. Accordingly, we quash the assessment order on the ground of violation of natural justice, i.e., denial of cross-examination. As we have allowed the appeal of the assessee on this legal ground, we do not propose

Kiran Devi Agarwal, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 301/HYD/2025[2018-2019]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad14 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.301 To 303/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years:2018-19 To 2020-21) Kiran Devi Agarwal, Hyderabad. Pan:Adopa7925R (Appellant) Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad. (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.304 To 306/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years:2018-19 To 2020-21) Ankit Agarwal, Hyderabad. Pan:Bnlpa0543D (Appellant) Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad. (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessees By: Shri Sharad Chandra Toshniwal, C.A. राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing: 09/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 14/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench : These Appeals Are Filed By The Captioned Assessees, Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)") For The A.Ys.2018-19 To 2020-21 Respectively. These Six Appeals Of The Assessees Involve Identical Issues Arising Out Of Similar Facts & Are Therefore Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Consistency. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 14 Days In Some Appeals & 15 Days In Others. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petitions Along With Affidavits, Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. After Going Through The Condonation Petitions & The Material On Record & Considering The Submissions Of The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. Ar") & The Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. Dr"), In The Interest Of Substantial Justice, We Condone The Delay In Filing All The Appeals & Admit Them For Adjudication On Merits.

For Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, SR-DR
Section 132(4)Section 153C

case vitiates the assessment proceedings and renders the assessment order unsustainable in law. Accordingly, we quash the assessment order on the ground of violation of natural justice, i.e., denial of cross-examination. As we have allowed the appeal of the assessee on this legal ground, we do not propose