← 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

Ecoslag Cements and Additives Private Limited, Mangaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Panaji

ITA 269/PAN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 269/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20 Ecoslag Cements & Additives Pvt. Ltd. D.No. V5-1-T-49/12, Ramakrishna Shopping Compound, Mahesh Pu College Road, Bengaluru Pan : Aacce2303F . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr V Sriram Rao [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Smt Nazeera Mohammad [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 11/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 12/03/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Impugns Din & Order Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068333198(1) Dt. 04/09/2024 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Penalty Dt. 30/08/2022 Passed U/S 271C Of The Act By The Jt. Cit, Panaji [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2019-20 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: Mr V Sriram Rao [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Smt Nazeera Mohammad [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 246ASection 249Section 249(2)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271C

therein circumstance due to which a delay of 1 day was occurred. Faced with the situation, the assessee came in present appeal for violation of natural justice. 4. The assessee received the impugned penalty order on 13/09/2024 and was under obligation to file an appeal within 30 days therefrom

Om Yash Projects Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 40/AHD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.40/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2023-24 Om Yash Projects Ltd., Income Tax Officer, Office No. 1113, Aaron Spectra, बनाम/ Ward-3(1)(1), V/S. Rajpath Rangoli Road, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380054 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aacco4734C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kaushik Kejriwal & Ms. Kushboo Shah, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Learned Additional / Joint From The Office Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Guwahati [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"], Dated 26.11.2024, In Connection With The Intimation Under Section 143(1) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2023-24, Issued By The Centralized Processing Center (Cpc), Bangalore, Dated 09.01.2024. Om Yash Projects Ltd. Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri Kaushik Kejriwal & MsFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

separately indicated. The gross receipts as per Form 26AS include GST, and TDS was incorrectly deducted on the GST component. 3 Other Violation of Natural Justice The authorities ignored the detailed submissions and evidence furnished by the appellant, including bifurcation of income as per books and Form 26AS, which clearly

Mac Educational Foundation, Chennai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2951/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2942/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-2017) Mac Educational Foundation, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Mac Ich Building, Exemption Ward -4, Vhs Campus, Ttti Post, Chennai. Taramani, Chennai 600 113. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2951/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-2018) Mac Educational Foundation, Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Mac Ich Building, (Appeals) Vhs Campus, Ttti Post, New Delhi Taramani, Chennai 600 113. [Pan: Aaatm 0523A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. P. Vijaideepan, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manu Kumar Giri () Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2016-17 & 2017-18 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 21-08-2024 In The Matter Of Separate Assessments Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 20-12-2019 For Ay 2016-17 & On 21-12-2019 For Ay 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 19 & 20 Days In Filing The Captioned Appeals By The Assessee. Considering The Period Of Delay & Reasons Stated In The Petition By The Assessee, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Vijaideepan, JCIT
Section 11Section 143(3)

find that the assessee has failed to make any effective representation during first appellate proceedings and Ld. AR has raised an issue of violation of natural justice and seek another opportunity of hearing before lower authorities. The same is on the ground that Ld. CIT(A) has merely relied

Mac Educational Foundation, Chennai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, New Delhi

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2942/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2942/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-2017) Mac Educational Foundation, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Mac Ich Building, Exemption Ward -4, Vhs Campus, Ttti Post, Chennai. Taramani, Chennai 600 113. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2951/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-2018) Mac Educational Foundation, Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Mac Ich Building, (Appeals) Vhs Campus, Ttti Post, New Delhi Taramani, Chennai 600 113. [Pan: Aaatm 0523A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. P. Vijaideepan, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manu Kumar Giri () Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2016-17 & 2017-18 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 21-08-2024 In The Matter Of Separate Assessments Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 20-12-2019 For Ay 2016-17 & On 21-12-2019 For Ay 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 19 & 20 Days In Filing The Captioned Appeals By The Assessee. Considering The Period Of Delay & Reasons Stated In The Petition By The Assessee, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Vijaideepan, JCIT
Section 11Section 143(3)

find that the assessee has failed to make any effective representation during first appellate proceedings and Ld. AR has raised an issue of violation of natural justice and seek another opportunity of hearing before lower authorities. The same is on the ground that Ld. CIT(A) has merely relied