“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

Gurupada Maji, Purulia vs. Addl. CIT, Central Range - 2, Kolkata

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

ITA 376/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 269SSection 271Section 271D

appellant contends that until the quantum addition is finalized, the penalty imposed on the same ground is premature and unjustified. 2. Violation of Natural Justice - No Opportunity of Being Heard: The condonation of delay was rejected without providing the appellant an opportunity of being heard. The appellant

ACIT, Agra vs. Amit Agarwal, Mathura

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for both the Assessment

ITA 46/AGR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Agra20 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 132(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 251Section 69A

assessee did not file reply in response to the final show cause. From the above, it is clear that there is no violation of natural justice as sufficient opportunities have been provided to the assessee to file his reply. It is his responsibilities to complete the assessment proceedings

ACIT, Agra vs. Amit Agarwal, Mathura

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for both the Assessment

ITA 45/AGR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra20 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 132(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 251Section 69A

Ojas Shashikant Kulkarni, Margao vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

ITA 50/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji20 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavankumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 050/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Ojas Shashikant Kulkarni A-3/A-4, C.D. Neighbourhood, Swami Chinmayanand Marg, Gogoi, Salcete, Margao, Goa Pan : Dkzpk5732F . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Asstt. Director Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr D.E. Robinson [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Smt Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 19/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/06/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; Assessee’S Captioned Appeal Impugns Din & Order 1072026383(1) Dt. 09/01/2025 Passed By Addl//Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals-2, Jaipur [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Intimation Dt. 26/11/2021 Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Act By Asstt. Direction Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru [‘Ld. Ao’] Anent To Assessment Year 2020-21 [‘Ay’].

For Appellant: Mr D.E. Robinson [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Smt Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 90

consequence dismissed the appeal in limine as barred by limitation. Faced with the situation, the assessee came in present appeal alleging violation of natural justice. 4. The order of intimation passed on 26/11/2021 was received by the appellant on 30/11/2021 and thus was under obligation to file an appeal within

Ultima Realtors Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO 3(3) (3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2628/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi, A/RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr. D/R

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 246ASection 250

appeal. Your appellant prays that the ex-parte order be quashed. 3. GROUND NO. 3: DENIAL OF OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING & GROSS VIOLATION OF NATURAL JUSTICE I.T.A. No. 2628/Mum/2025 2 The Id. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not providing opportunity of hearing inspite of written request ... failure in ignoring the submissions and passing an ex-parte order. (vi) Failure of A.O. to not dispose off objection to reopening and violation of natural justice by A.O. (vii) Upholding of reopening and reassessment order (viii) Levy of interest u/s. 234A of Rs. 4,46,442 and u/s. 234B

Rohit Goel, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-20, Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 1209/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Ms. Swati Talwar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 271ASection 69Section 69A

submit cogent evidence or materials to explain the discrepancies found in the books of the assessee. Accordingly, ground no 3 regarding violation of natural justice is dismissed. 14. With respect to ground 9 regarding assessment made u/s 143(3) being bad in law in cases where the books of accounts

Vaidik Anusandhan Kendra, Nagpur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 160/NAG/2025[Not Applicable]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur19 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY

Shreeji Gopalbhai Patel, Panchmahal vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Godhra

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1852/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

without rejecting the application of the appellant as made under rule 46A of the IT Rule is illegal and gross violation of natural justice and therefore such addition may kindly be deleted. 6. The ld. CIT (A) on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... made by the Id. AO u/s 69A of the Act may kindly be deleted being the same bad in law and in gross violation of natural justice. 7. Kindly stay the demand. I.T.A No. 1852/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 4 Shreeji Gopalbhai Patel vs. ITO 8. The appellant craves

Vrundavan Charitable Trust, Surat vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 499/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jun 2025

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year :- Vrundavan Charitable Trust The Cit (Exemption) 451-452, Vrundavan Township Vs. Vejalpur Nr.Bhestan Railway Station Ahmedabad. Bhestan, Surat. Pa : Aaetv 1496 R (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Esmayeel Saherwala, Ar Assessee By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/06/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/06/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

assessee. We are of the considered opinion that the non-consideration of reply and material submitted by the assessee constitutes clear violation of natural justice and renders the order unsustainable. It is settled law that where material submissions are filed before the competent authority, the same must be considered

Subburam Ashok Balaji, Virudhunagar vs. ITO, Ward-1, Virudhunagar

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

ITA 849/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Gautham S. Mukundan

assessee brought to our notice that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed the impugned order without hearing the assessee and therefore, there is a violation of natural justice and therefore, according to him, impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is erroneous. At the same time, it was also brought

Ananthakrishnan Radhakrishnan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 845/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Ms.A. Nikita, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Gautham S. Mukundan

Section 250

Ld.CIT(A). Be that as it may, the impugned orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A) are ex parte orders and therefore, there is violation of natural justice and therefore, we set aside the impugned orders of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the appeals back to the file of the Ld.CIT

Ananthakrishnan Radhakrishnan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 844/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Ms.A. Nikita, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Gautham S. Mukundan

Section 250

Shila Devi, Sri Ganganagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Suratgarh

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the assesses are allowed for

ITA 242/JODH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

Section 144Section 144BSection 147

authorities below passed ex parte qua the assesse. 2. Since there was common issue involved in both these appeals related to violation of natural justice and hence these two appeal were heard on the same date although argued by separate counsel and adjudicated by this consolidated order for brevity

Chainaram, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Jodhpur

In the result, the captioned appeals of the assesses in ITA Nos

ITA 724/JODH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Blechainaram V/P Doli Tehsil Luni, Jodhpur - 342001. Pan No Biкpr9270C Assessee By Revenue By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement Ito, Ward-3(1), Jodhpur. Shri Anil Bhansali, Advocate. Shri Karni Dan, Addl. Cit (Sr. D.R.) 21.05.2025. 26.06.2025. 17

Section 144Section 144BSection 147

violation of principles of natural justice. 2. Since there are common issues inter-related to each other involved, in all these appeals regarding violation of natural justice and hence these three appeal were heard together and adjudicated by this consolidated order for brevity. The facts are discussed from

Chainaram, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Jodhpur

In the result, the captioned appeals of the assesses in ITA Nos

ITA 723/JODH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

Section 144Section 144BSection 147

Chainaram, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Jodhpur

In the result, the captioned appeals of the assesses in ITA Nos

ITA 722/JODH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

Section 144Section 144BSection 147

Shri Narayan Lal Dangi, Udaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Udaipur

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the assesses are allowed for

ITA 523/JODH/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

Section 144Section 144BSection 147

Shailesh Champaklal Vakharia, Nagpur vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income (Central) Circle - 1(1), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 344/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69A

no.344/Nag./2023 to only one conclusion that this indeed is a fatal flaw and the assessment order suffers from the vice of serious violation of natural justice. The AO has not brought on record any evidence in support of his claim that the appellant

S.R. Thorat Charitable Trust, Ahemednagar vs. CIT (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 1208/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jun 2025

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1208/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: - S.R.Thorat Charitable Trust, V The Cit(Exemption), Parasmani Rajapur Road, S. Pune. Gunjalwadi, Sangamner Dist, Ahmednagar – 422605. Maharashtra. Pan: Abcts2629C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Gopal Suresh Metkar & Shri Chaitanya Anant Kavathale – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde –Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune Passed Under Section 80G Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 01.04.2025. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. That The Learned Cit (Exemption) Erred In Law & Facts In Rejecting The Application Under Section 80G(5) Before The Intended Due Date For Submission Of Documents, Ignoring The Appellant'S Bona Fide Effort To Seek An Adjournment.

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

documents, ignoring the appellant's bona fide effort to seek an adjournment. ITA No.1208/PUN/2025 [A] 2. That the rejection order is in violation of natural justice, as the appellant was not granted effective opportunity to be heard due to technical failure beyond its control 3. That the appellant has been

Tamil Film Producers Council, Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

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

ITA 519/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

documents furnished by the assessee and didn’t give an opportunity to explain any short-comings. Therefore, there is per-se violation of natural justice and therefore, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(E) and restore the application back to his file with a direction to decide