← 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

The Press Club of Odisha, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO (Exemption) Ward, Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 179/CTK/2022[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack23 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2014-15 The Press Club Of Odisha, The Press Club Of Odisha, Vs. Income Income Tax Tax Officer Officer Qr. No.Vii Ds1/1, Master Qr. No.Vii Ds1/1, Master (Exemptions), (Exemptions), Ward, Ward, Canteen Canteen Square, Square, Unit Unit-Iii, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aactt 3137 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.Parida, Ca D.Parida, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/0 /08/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Aga This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Inst The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Cit(A), Nfac, Nfac, Delhi, Delhi, Dated 23.10.2022 In Appeal No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1046453146(1) For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2014- 15. 2. Shri D.Parida, Ca Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Shri D.Parida, Ca Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Shri D.Parida, Ca Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue. Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri D.Parida, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR
Section 143(1)Section 154

submission that the ld CIT(A) has passed the order exparte without giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, which is clear violation of natural justice. He submitted that the assessee trust is not for profit making organization, which was established solely for the welfare and development

Nitushree Patra, Paniapada vs. DCIT Asmnt Circle-2, Cuttack

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

ITA 222/CTK/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack21 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18 Nitushree Patra, At: Paniapada, Nitushree Patra, At: Paniapada, Vs. Dcit, Asmnt Circle 2(1), Dcit, Asmnt Circle 2(1), Po: Aruinodaya Market, Link Po: Aruinodaya Market, Link Cuttack Road, Cuttack Road, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Agkpp 1787 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra P.K.Mishra, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 21/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/0 /08/2023

For Appellant: Shri P.K.MishraFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR
Section 144

that the ld CIT(A) has passed the exparte order without giving an opportunity to the assessee, which is gross violation of natural justice. He submitted that the ld CIT(A) has not also passed the order on merits. He prayed that if one more opportunity is granted, the assessee

Arati Behera, Cuttack vs. DCIT Asmnt Circle-2(1), Cuttack

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

ITA 214/CTK/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack21 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18 Arati Behera, At: Ranihat Po: Arati Behera, At: Ranihat Po: Vs. Dcit, Asmnt Circle 2(1), Dcit, Asmnt Circle 2(1), Buxi Bazar, Cuttack Buxi Bazar, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aerpm 0403 L (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ar P.R.Mohanty, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 21/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/0 /08/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr
Section 250(6)

order without giving an opportunity to the assessee, which is gross violation order without giving an opportunity to the assessee, which is gross violation of natural justice. He submitted that the ld CIT(A) has not of natural justice. He submitted that the ld CIT(A) has not of natural

ACIT Circle-28(1), New Delhi vs. Pinnacle Clothing Company, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 679/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

through banking channel. These accounts were duly confirmed by the vendor u/s 133(6) Further, no opportunity for cross examination was provided in violation of natural justice Therefore, in absence of sufficient material in hand against the appellant the addition made by the AO of Rs.3,59,02,700/- towards

DCIT Circle-28(1), New Delhi vs. Pinnacle Clothing Company, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5833/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

through banking channel. These accounts were duly confirmed by the vendor u/s 133(6) Further, no opportunity for cross examination was provided in violation of natural justice Therefore, in absence of sufficient material in hand against the appellant the addition made by the AO of Rs.3,59,02,700/- towards

Legend Transport Solutions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-15(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1613/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

Section 143(2)Section 194CSection 234B

supplied by M/s AON Services India Pvt. Ltd. and consequently the assessment so framed by the Assessing Officer is arbitrary, unjust and in violation of natural justice. 2. That in the absence of cross-examination allowed to the assessee, the Assessing Officer ought not have made the addition based

Panna Lal Mukharjee 1065/1, Shastri Nagar Medical College, Jabalpur vs. ITO2(3), Jabalpur

ITA 91/JAB/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur21 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2017-18 Panna Lal Mukherjee, Vs. Income Tax Officer 2(3), 1065/1, Shastri Nagar, Near Jabalpur Medical College, Jabalpur (Mp) 482003 Pan : Afnpm 2253B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri G.N. Purohit, Sr. Advocate & Shri Uma Parashar, Advocate Respondent By Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2023

Section 69A

order of the NFAC by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The learned CIT(A) NFAC has passed the order in gross violation of natural justice without considering the application under rule 46A dated 13/08/2022 and evidence submitted with the application. The CIT (A) has not considered the written

Shri Balbir Singh M/S Jaideep Gift Centre Taptej Singh Market, Moga vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Moga Range Moga, Moga

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

ITA 746/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Radhey Shyam Jaiswal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 27Section 271D

taking rebuttal of the assessee on the adverse decision taken against him based on material on record which is certainly amounts to violation of natural justice. 12. In view of the principles of natural justice and the peculiar facts of the case, we consider it deems fit to remand

Shri Balbir Singh M/S Jaideep Gift Centre, Taptej Singh Market, Moga vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Moga Range, Moga

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

ITA 745/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Radhey Shyam Jaiswal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 27Section 271D

taking rebuttal of the assessee on the adverse decision taken against him based on material on record which is certainly amounts to violation of natural justice. 12. In view of the principles of natural justice and the peculiar facts of the case, we consider it deems fit to remand

Madhurittu Puri, United Kingdom vs. DCIT, Circle International Taxation 2(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3063/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Sapra, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Vizay Vasanta, CIT- DR
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 234DSection 270A(2)

right to examine and distinguish. This resulted in violation of principles of natural justice. Reliance is placed on precedents holding that violation of natural justice renders the assessment void. The Ld. AR cited the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Lasha Construction

Mangal Bullion Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-CC - 1(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the AO is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 331/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S Mangal Bullion Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Cc 1(1) 202, 2Nd Floor, Chintamani 903, 9Th Floor, Pratishtha Arcade, Opp. Bombay Bullion Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, Vs. (Annexe), M.K. Road, Bldg. Dhanji Street, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagcm2672M M/S Mangal Bullion Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Cc 1(3) 202, 2Nd Floor, Chintamani 905, 9Th Floor, Pratishtha Arcade, Opp. Bombay Bullion Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg Vs. (Annexe), M.K. Road, Bldg. Dhanji Street, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagcm2672M

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M Kacha and Shri
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

unexplained money. Such addition is bad in law & erroneous in facts and therefore liable to be deleted. 3. Passing the order against violation of natural justice The Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the order without providing proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Thereby, passing the order without proper

Dy CIT CC-1(1), Mumbai vs. Mangal Bullion P. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the AO is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1407/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S Mangal Bullion Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Cc 1(1) 202, 2Nd Floor, Chintamani 903, 9Th Floor, Pratishtha Arcade, Opp. Bombay Bullion Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, Vs. (Annexe), M.K. Road, Bldg. Dhanji Street, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagcm2672M M/S Mangal Bullion Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Cc 1(3) 202, 2Nd Floor, Chintamani 905, 9Th Floor, Pratishtha Arcade, Opp. Bombay Bullion Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg Vs. (Annexe), M.K. Road, Bldg. Dhanji Street, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagcm2672M

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M Kacha and Shri
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

unexplained money. Such addition is bad in law & erroneous in facts and therefore liable to be deleted. 3. Passing the order against violation of natural justice The Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the order without providing proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Thereby, passing the order without proper

DCIT, CC-2(2), Mum vs. Shri Narendra S Shah, Mumbai

ITA 2566/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Karan JainFor Respondent: Kamble Minal Mohan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

examination was allowed to the assessee and information was used a information was used against the assessee causing violation gainst the assessee causing violation of natural justice. of natural justice. 12. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we are of 12. In view of the above facts

DCIT, CC-2(2), Mum vs. Shri Narendra S Shah, Mum

ITA 2315/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Karan JainFor Respondent: Kamble Minal Mohan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

examination was allowed to the assessee and information was used a information was used against the assessee causing violation gainst the assessee causing violation of natural justice. of natural justice. 12. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we are of 12. In view of the above facts

Shri Narendra S Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), Mumbai

ITA 2007/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Karan JainFor Respondent: Kamble Minal Mohan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

examination was allowed to the assessee and information was used a information was used against the assessee causing violation gainst the assessee causing violation of natural justice. of natural justice. 12. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we are of 12. In view of the above facts

Shri Narendra S Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 2(2), Mumbai

ITA 2006/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Karan JainFor Respondent: Kamble Minal Mohan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

examination was allowed to the assessee and information was used a information was used against the assessee causing violation gainst the assessee causing violation of natural justice. of natural justice. 12. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we are of 12. In view of the above facts

Shri Narendra S Shah, Mum vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), Mum

ITA 2005/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Karan JainFor Respondent: Kamble Minal Mohan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

examination was allowed to the assessee and information was used a information was used against the assessee causing violation gainst the assessee causing violation of natural justice. of natural justice. 12. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we are of 12. In view of the above facts

Shri Narendra S Shah, Mum vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), Mum

ITA 2004/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Karan JainFor Respondent: Kamble Minal Mohan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

examination was allowed to the assessee and information was used a information was used against the assessee causing violation gainst the assessee causing violation of natural justice. of natural justice. 12. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we are of 12. In view of the above facts

Shri Narendra S Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cen Cir-(2), Mumbai

ITA 2003/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Karan JainFor Respondent: Kamble Minal Mohan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

examination was allowed to the assessee and information was used a information was used against the assessee causing violation gainst the assessee causing violation of natural justice. of natural justice. 12. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we are of 12. In view of the above facts

Aj Energy Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Delhi

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

ITA 1190/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manvendra Goel, CIT(DR)
Section 142(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68Section 69C

order passed by the NFAC is bad in law having been passed exparte without giving assessee an opportunity of being heard in clear violation of natural justice. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the NFAC has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the order