← 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

Bethany Navajeevan Trust, Vencode vs. The Income Tax Officer, Tirunelveli

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

ITA 3211/CHNY/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Apr 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam
Section 250

Navajeevan Trust :: 2 :: order qua assessee i.e. without going into the merits of the grounds raised before him, and notes that there is violation of natural justice, so one more opportunity needs to be granted to the assessee for pursuing its appeal before the First Appellate Authority. However, the Ld.DR

Srinivasan Raj, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncc-3(2), Coimbatore

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

ITA 2415/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69A

before the AO, which led to the AO making addition of the entire cash deposits which according to the Ld.AR was in gross violation of natural justice. Be that as it may, we notice that similar issue had cropped up in the assessee’s own case

ACIT 4 2 1, Mumbai City vs. Iifl Securities, Mumbai City

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 737/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Therefore, the additions made under Section 68, amounting to Rs. 6,78,65,920/-are deleted due to lack of evidence and violation of natural justice.” 7. It was submitted that as apparent from the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the substantial additions made by the AO has been deleted

ACIT-4 2 1, Mum vs. Iifl Securities Ltd, Mumbai City

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 722/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Therefore, the additions made under Section 68, amounting to Rs. 6,78,65,920/-are deleted due to lack of evidence and violation of natural justice.” 7. It was submitted that as apparent from the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the substantial additions made by the AO has been deleted

Rajesh Shivji Shah, Mumbai vs. 20(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 525/MUM/2025[2011-2012]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainrajesh Shivji Shah Vs. Ito – 20(3)(1) Room No. 10, 2Nd Floor, 142 2Nd Floor, Piramal Chakan Niwas, St. Paul St. Chambers, Lower Parel Hindmata, Dadar (E), 400013. Mumbai – 400014. Pan/Gir No. Aafps4342A (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 147Section 250Section 69C

Rajesh Shivji Shah, Mumbai made request to the AO and also before the Ld. CIT(A), but the revenue authorities ignored this violation of natural justice. It is also an admitted fact that the sales corresponding to the purchases were accepted by the AO but the purchases were disallowed which

Anatole Solutions Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle 2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1082/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 234ASection 56(2)(viib)

erred in law and facts in making the additions and confirming the same without providing specific and proper Show Cause Notice led to violation of Natural Justice therefore complete addition should be deleted. 4. The Ld. AO as well as Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC have grossly erred

Rupa Vipul Shah, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Mumbai

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

ITA 5493/MUM/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Jayant R. Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69A

/MUM/2024 “1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by CIT (A) being being in violation of natural justice and as such the assessment should be annulled. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case ... deleted. 1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by CIT (A) being being in violation of natural justice and as such the assessment should be annulled. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case

Rupa Vipul Shah, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Mumbai

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

ITA 5492/MUM/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Jayant R. Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69A

/MUM/2024 “1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by CIT (A) being being in violation of natural justice and as such the assessment should be annulled. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case ... deleted. 1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by CIT (A) being being in violation of natural justice and as such the assessment should be annulled. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1 1, Chennai vs. Il and Fs Tamilnadu Power Company Limited, Chennai

ITA 1694/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon'Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1332/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2018-19 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1694/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2018-19 Il & Fs Tamil Nadu Power Company Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Old No.21, New No.2, Kpr Tower, 4Th Floor, Greams Road, S.O, Nungambakkam Chennai-600 006. [Pan: Aabcf1176A] Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1694/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai Il & Fs Tamil Nadu Power Company Limited, Old No.21, New No.2, Kpr Tower, 4Th Floor, Greams Road, S.O, Nungambakkam Chennai-600 006. [Pan: Aabcf1176A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri.Ashwin, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : The Below Mentioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Appellant Assessee & Revenue For Ay-2018-19 Contesting The Order Of Ld. First Appellate Authority Indicated In Column-E, Herein Below:- S. No. A Appeal Nos. B Ays C Appellant D Cit(A) Order Details E Respondent F 1

For Appellant: Shri.Ashwin, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, CIT

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'ए' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय श्री मनु कुमार गिरि

Satnam Singh, Nai Basti Aligarh vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(1)(1), Marris Road Aligarh

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 12/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Learned Cit(A), Who Dismissed Assessee’S First Appeal Exparte In Default Of Assessee.

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH

Srirangagounder Paramasivam, Tirupur vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Tiruppur

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

ITA 3133/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Respondent: Mr.R. Raghupathy, Addl.CIT
Section 250Section 6

refer Para No.6 of Ld.CIT(A)] 3. In the light of the aforesaid fact, we find that there is a gross violation of natural justice and therefore, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to his file, with a direction to decide

Amarjit Singh HUF, Baghapurana, Moga vs. ITO Ward 1, Moga

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 307/ASR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Das Gupta

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 270A

have considered the materials on record and looked into the enclosed screen shot of the portal, and we find there has indeed been violation of natural justice in as much the proceeding limitation date is stipulated on 30th September, 2022, assessment order is passed on 19th September

Sushma Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 1328/JPR/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Arbind SharmaFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 156Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

wrong addresss in all the correspondence and orders, they wre not served. The Deptt was under obligation to serve them. Their is violation of natural justice and more particulalry when Assessement has been quashed and penalty for non compliance of notice has been also quashed, There is a want

Rohit M. Savla, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-27(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 4 & 5 are allowed

ITA 6434/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Rohit M. Savla Income-Tax Officer – B/4, Flat No. 501, Kutchi Sarvoday 27(3)(1),It Office, Vashi Nagar, P.L. Lokhande Marg, Govandi Vs. Railway Station, (Vv), Navi Mumbai-400705. Mumbai – 400043. Pan: Aacps 9562 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Paras Savla, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Pradnya Gholap, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.04.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 07.11.2024 For A.Y. 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Paras Savla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Pradnya Gholap, Sr. DR
Section 234ASection 254(1)Section 37Section 68

Departmental Representative (DR) of the Revenue. Ground no. 1 is general and needs no adjudication. Ground no. 2 relates to violation of natural justice and ground no. 3 relates to rejection of additional evidences. No specific submissions were made with regard to ground no. 2 and 3, therefore, ground

Vinod Dedhia Prop. of Jay Ambe Petroleum Services, Mumbai vs. ITO 20(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1089/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1089/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-18) Vinod Dedhia Prop. Of V/S. Income Tax Officer Jay Ambe Petroleum बिधम 20(3)(1), Mumbai Services Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug 601/C 201, Pragati 400012 Paradise Co Op Hs, Dr Ambedkar Road, Matunga East 400019 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aqnpd0772F Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri. Mandar Vaidya/ Shri NitinFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (SR DR)
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144ASection 250Section 69A

matter to the Id. Α.Ο. e) Your appellant prays that the addition of Rs. 72,53,000 u/s 69A be deleted. 5. Violation of Natural Justice: a) The Id. A.O. erred in law and on facts in passing the assessment order u/s 144 in violation of the principles

Dinesh Kumar Mittal, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Jpr, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1570/JPR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A). Apropos To The Grounds So Raised The Relevant Finding Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Reiterated Here

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 10Section 154

toto, The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in deciding the appeal against the 3. assessee without providing opportunity of being heard therefore violation of natural justice hence appeal should be restored. 4. The ld. AO has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case ... toto, 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in deciding the appeal against the assessee without providing opportunity of being heard therefore violation of natural justice hence appeal should be restored. 7 Dinesh Kumar Mittal vs. ITO The ld. AO has grossly erred in law as well

Dhaval Vallabhbhai Godhani, Rajkot vs. DCIT/ACIT Cent-1, RKT, Rajkot

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

ITA 890/RJT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 272ASection 272A(1)(d)

facts and law of the case penalty order is Tage | 3 Dhaval Vallabhbhai Godhani ITA No. 889 & 890/Rjt/2024 (AY 2018-20) framed in violation of natural justice and in arbitrary. Therefore, we find that the notice were issued on portal only not sent to the assessee. Therefore, we quashed

The Deputy Commr. of Income Tax, Cen. Cir.1, Rajkot vs. Jayesh Harakhji Patel, Rajkot

ITA 76/RJT/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Mar 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.59/Rjt/2018 &

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT.DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

ITA Nos. 59 & 76/RJT/2018 (Jayesh Harakhji Patel & IT(SS)A Nos. 86 to 89 & 97 to 99/Rjt/2018 (Ravi V. Hirani

Mohan Thakurdas Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO Centeral Circle 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 439/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 435/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2010-11) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 436/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2011-12) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 437/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2012-13) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 438/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 439/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2016-17) Mohan Thakurdas Gurnani Flat No. 2101, Moraj Casa Grande, Plot No. 57, Sector 17, Koperkhairne, Maharashtra-400709 V/S. बनाम Ito Central Circle 5(2) Room No. 427, 4Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Maharashtra-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacpg8827D Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By: None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri R. R. Makwana सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 12.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 28.03.2025 आदेश / Order Page 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

merit of the case. (c) Your appellant prays that an order passed in specific violation of s.275 be quashed. GROUND NO. 3: SERIOUS VIOLATION OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND OF S. 274 AND S. 275 (a) The Id. CIT(A) erred in law in confirming the order ... merit of the case. (c) Your appellant prays that an order passed in specific violation of s.275 be quashed. GROUND NO. 3: SERIOUS VIOLATION OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND OF S. 274 AND S. 275 (a) The Id. CIT(A) erred in law in confirming the order

Mohan Thakurdas Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 438/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 435/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2010-11) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 436/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2011-12) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 437/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2012-13) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 438/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 439/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2016-17) Mohan Thakurdas Gurnani Flat No. 2101, Moraj Casa Grande, Plot No. 57, Sector 17, Koperkhairne, Maharashtra-400709 V/S. बनाम Ito Central Circle 5(2) Room No. 427, 4Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Maharashtra-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacpg8827D Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By: None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri R. R. Makwana सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 12.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 28.03.2025 Page 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

merit of the case. (c) Your appellant prays that an order passed in specific violation of s.275 be quashed. GROUND NO. 3: SERIOUS VIOLATION OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND OF S. 274 AND S. 275 (a) The Id. CIT(A) erred in law in confirming the order ... merit of the case. (c) Your appellant prays that an order passed in specific violation of s.275 be quashed. GROUND NO. 3: SERIOUS VIOLATION OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND OF S. 274 AND S. 275 (a) The Id. CIT(A) erred in law in confirming the order