“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

M/S Jil Information Technology Limited, New Delhi vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-3, Lucknow

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

ITA 363/LKW/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2021-22 M/S Jil Information Technology Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Limited, 54, Ja Annexe, Basant Lok, Income Tax, Range-3, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 Lucknow Pan: Aaacj8827B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. B.P. Yadav, Adv Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Addl/Jcit(A), Panaji, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 19.03.2025, Wherein The Ld. Addl/Jcit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Under Section 143(1) Passed For The A.Y. 2021-22 By The Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru On 13.11.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ld. Cit(A)"] Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Disposing The Appeal Of The Appellant By Passing An Ex-Parte Order Which Is In Gross Violation Of Natural Justice & Fair Play As The Assessee Was Not Provided Reasonable Opportunity To Have Its Say On The Merit Of The Additions Made By The Ld. Ao. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Appreciating That The Addition Of Rs.78,17,622/-And Also The Addition Of Rs.74,913/-Do Not Fall Under The Purview Of The Clauses Enshrined In Section 143(1) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 & Also Failed To Appreciate That The Additions Made In The Present Case Are In The Nature Of Debate

For Appellant: Sh. B.P. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 250

erred on facts and in law in disposing the appeal of the appellant by passing an ex-parte order which is in gross violation of natural justice and fair play as the assessee was not provided reasonable opportunity to have its say on the merit of the additions made

Gobinda Adhikary, Kolkata, West Bengal vs. Ward 34(1), Kolkata, West Bengal

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

ITA 2802/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 69Section 69A

115BBE of the Income tax Act, 1961. ITA No.: 2802/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Gobinda Adhikary. Ground No. 3: Quashing of Assessment Order (Violation of Natural Justice and Non-Verification of Disclosed Facts) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer

Mark Steels Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 3(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2603/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

appearing earlier was an inadvertent misdescription, which does not impeach the entry-layering findings. Reopening is upheld and the allegation of violation of natural justice fails, as reasons were furnished, notices were issued, Investigation Wing material existed, and the minor misdescription is cured by remand clarification without affecting the core

Jesaram Purohit, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 8344/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, L.d

Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "F" BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH

Digvijay Lions Foundation, Asarwa vs. CIT(Exemption), Vejalpur

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

ITA 169/AHD/2026[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2026

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Years: Na

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

appeal. 1 The CIT (Exemption) erred in rejecting Form 10AB despite complete compliance with Rule 17A(2) 2. The order was passed in violation of natural justice, ignoring the extension request dated 24.12. 2025 and replies filed on 01.01.2026 and 02.01.2026 3. The CIT wrongly held that only

Kalabharti Charitable Foundation, Vadodara vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 225/AHD/2025[N.A.]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2026

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, CAFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR

Section 2(15)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

without properly considering the appellant's submission to the Show Cause notice and failing to provide an adequate opportunity to be heard. This violation of natural justice renders the order void ab initio. It is therefore prayed that the order be annulled and the appellant’s application be approved

M/S Houston Tours and Travels, Mumbai vs. Central Circle 2(2), Mumbai, Aaykar Bhavan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5906/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethm/S Houston Tours & Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Travels Circle 2(2) 3Rd Floor Manohardas Maharshi Karve Road, New Marine Lines, Road, Boribuilder, C.S.T., Mumbai-400020 Mumbai – 400001 Pan/Gir No: Aajfh8097D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Jayant Bhatt Respondent By Shri V. Vinodkumar, (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 06.03.2026 O R D E R Per Bijyananda Pruseth, Am:

Section 115BSection 250Section 68

order passed by the Learned CIT(A) being bad in law on various grounds including but not restricted to violation of natural justice and rejection of Laws of Jurisprudence and that the order be Annulled or Set Aside. 11) The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, or withdraw

Patel Wines, Kheda vs. The Dy.CIT, Kheda Circle, Nadiad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1740/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 250

when the assessee was regularly operating bank accounts and depositing cash sales throughout the year. 7. With respect to the ground relating to violation of natural justice, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) held that adequate opportunities were granted during the assessment proceedings as well as during the appellate proceedings, and therefore

Bharat Kantilal Doshi, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), Navi Mumbai

ITA 7171/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Paresh Shaparia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari, Sr. AR

Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

Bharat Kantilal Doshi, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), Navi Mumbai

ITA 7170/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Paresh Shaparia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari, Sr. AR

Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

Hitesh Singla 32579 Street No 1 Paras Ram Nagar, Bathida vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1) Aaykar Bhawan Civil Line Bathinda, Bathinda

In the result the appeal of the assessee remanded back to the Ld

ITA 628/ASR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv

Section 142(1)Section 249(2)Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)

reasons for such delay , before dismissing the said appeal and in the instant case no such opportunity has been given , which results in violation of natural justice, and he prays for such opportunity. 3 I.T.A. No. 628/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 6. The Ld DR relied on the order ... case of imposition of penalty of a minimum amount) we find that in the instant case the assessee has raised issues regarding violation of natural justice. The appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) has been dismissed on the grounds of delay in filing, because the appellate authority was prima facie

Rohitkumar Chinubhai Modi, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Cir. 5(2) Now DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1961/AHD/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Satish Solanki, ARFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

grievance. We are of the considered view that where the assessee did not seek cross-examination at the relevant stage, the plea of violation of natural justice cannot be entertained at a later stage. The present case, therefore, does not suffer from any violation of principles of natural justice

Saurabhbhai Rohitbhai Modi, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Cir. 5(2) Now DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1960/AHD/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Satish Solanki, ARFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

Panchamrut Education and Charitable Trust, Bayad vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2685/AHD/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Feb 2026AY 2025-26

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT- DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

Court in Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise (281 CTR 241) has held that denial of an effective opportunity amounts to violation of natural justice and vitiates the proceedings. Similarly, in Tin Box Company v. CIT (249 ITR 216), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that where

Orissa Renewable Energy Development Agency (Oreda), Bhubaneswar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax ( Exemption), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 751/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.751/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Orissa Renewable Energy Vs Dcit(Exemption), Development Agency Bhubaneswar (Oreda), Plot No:- S/59, Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar, 751010, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaaao 5083 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) : Shri Bibekananda Mohanty, Ar "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kr. Chakraborty, Ld Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 18/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date : 18/02/2026 Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 03/12/2025 In Appeal No.Nfac/2016-17/10485045 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri Bibekananda Mohanty, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Ashim Kr. Chakraborty, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. 3. Ld Ar Has Filed Written Submission, Which Reads As Follows:

For Respondent: Shri Ashim Kr. Chakraborty, ld CIT DR

Section 12ASection 148A

well confirmation by the Honourable First Appellate Authority treating the credit amount in the Bank as other sources of income is in complete violation of natural justice and being aggrieved with such unilateral order, the appellant is now in appeal before Your August Forum for proper adjudication of the matter

Bharat Kumar Choudhary, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer 41 (3) (2), Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai

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

ITA 8785/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Bijayananda Prusethbharat Kumar Choudhary, Vs. Assessing Officer 41 (3) (2), Avenue 3, Shop No-12, Jai Santoshi Mata Near Videsh Bhavan, G Block Bkc. Gilban Nagar. Gulmohar Road No-5. Area, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Vileparle West. Mumbai- Mumbai-400051. 400049. Pan/Gir No: Cfwpk1543K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 69ASection 69a

assessment year (AY) 2017-18. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “Ground no. 1-violation of natural justice, jurisdictional hindrance, lack of meaningful opportunity to be heard. Ground no. 2-Quantum addition under section 69a is bad in law. Ground no. 3-Penalty ... Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed the appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted that there is violation of natural justice because notices were sent to Rajasthan whereas the appellant’s business, M/s New Amarson Chemist, is situated at Mumbai. Due to this, the notices

Manohar Singh, Jaisalmer vs. ACIT/Adic, Circle, Barmer

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 726/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blemanohar Singh Acit/Dcit, Circle, C/O Rajendra Jain Advocate, Barmer 106, Akshay Deep Complex, 5Th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur - 342001 Pan No. Biqps 5344 J Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate & Smt. Raksha Birla, Ca (Physical) Revenue By Shri Lalit Kumar Bishnoi, Addl. Cit-Dr (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal By Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As Nfac/Cit(A)] Dated 19.07.2024 With Respect To Assessment Year 2017-18 Challenging Therein The Impugned Order Passed In Gross Violation Of Natural Principles Of Natural Justice.

Section 250Section 250(1)

during the Covid period would be not justified as it has been in gross Asst. Year: 2017-18 3 violation of natural justice. In view of natural justice, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have allowed adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee during the remaining period of three

Astha Charitable Trust, Modasa vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2624/AHD/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Feb 2026AY 2025-26

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (281 CTR 241) has held that denial of opportunity to present one’s case amounts to violation of natural justice and vitiates the proceedings. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tin Box Company v. CIT (249 ITR 216) has held that where

Sameer Ramdas Pingale, Navi Mumbai vs. Ward 28(1)(1), Mumbai, Vashi, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 6752/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Arun Khopdia ()

Section 147Section 148Section 44A

26/08/2025 passed by the NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter the “Ld.CIT(A)”] for A.Y. 2020-21 on following grounds of appeal:- “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

Nikhil Banga Kalyan Samity, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Exempt, Kolkata

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

ITA 2807/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2026AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250

Assessing Officer. These grounds of appeal are therefore dismissed. 6.3 Ground 3: In this ground the appellant has raised the issue of violation of natural justice as prior opportunity was not provided before making the adjustment to the income. At the outset it may be mentioned that the Assessing Officer