← 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

Piyush R.Shah, Mumbai vs. PCIT-8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3207/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhpiyush R Shah Vs. Pcit-8 1301, Piroj Palace, 152, Room No. 610, 6 Th Floor, L.N. Road, Matunga Aaykarbhavan, Maharashtra – 400014 M.K. Road Maharashtra – 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aabps3962N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Pradipkapasi Respondent By : K.C. Selvamani Date Of Hearing 25.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Nfac, Delhi Dated 31.03.2022 For A.Y. 2015-16. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “Ground No. 1: Invalid Order U/S. 263 (A) The Ld. Cit-8, Mumbai Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing An Order U/S. 263 For Revising The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143(3) Dt. 20.12.2017. (B) Your Appellant Strongly Submits That Assessment Order U/S. 143(3) Dt. 20.12.2017 Was Passed After Adequate Enquiry & Consideration Of All Facts & In The Law On The Subject, Which Order Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue. (C) Your Appellant Pleads That The Said Order Passed U/S. 263 By The Ld. Cit- 8, Mumbai Be Quashed & Set Aside As It Is Bad In Law. Ground No. 2: Order U/S. 263 Without Juridiction

For Appellant: PradipKapasiFor Respondent: K.C. Selvamani
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 68

order passed without jurisdiction for revising an order which has ceased to exist be declared null and void. GROUND NO. 3: SERIOUS VIOLATION OF NATURAL JUSTICE (a) The Id. CIT-8, Mumbai, erred in law and on facts in denying the adequate opportunity of hearing and further erred