← 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

Nemchand Khetshi Dedhia, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal), Mumbai

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

ITA 1871/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1871/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Nemchand Khetshi Dedhia बिधम/ Cit(A) Row House No. 4, Shree Income Tax Department, Vs. Tilak Complex, Eksar Road, National Faceless Appeal Devki Nagar, Borivli West, Centre (Nfac), Delhi. Mumbai-400103, Maharashtra, India. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpd3444K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Mr. Chetan Kacha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/ Nfac, Delhi Dated 28.06.2022 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Revenue Reads As Under: - “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Passed An Order U/S 250 Of Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 28.06.2022 Having Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1043629976(1) Dismissing The Grounds Of Appeal & Thereby Dismissing The Appeal Without Considering The Submissions Made By The Appellant. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Grounds Of Appeal & Thereby Dismissing The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Ao (I.E. Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Order Passed By The Ld. Ao) U/S 143(3) Dated 22.12.2018, Wherein He Has (I) Made An Addition Of Rs.34,00,000/- U/S 68 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 On Account Of The Cash

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Chetan Kacha (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 156Section 234BSection 250Section 68

assessee has requested for person hearing the NFAC ought to have granted the request of assessee. Failure to do so resulted in the violation of natural justice. And therefore, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and restore the matter back

Saidatar Co-Op Credit Society Ltd., Borivali West vs. ITO 32(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1613/MUM/2021[A Y 2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita Kaushik
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 250Section 69ASection 80ASection 80P(2)(a)

Appellant and also misinterpreting section 80AC. [B] Relief Prayed: The appellant therefore prays as follows, 1. To quash the order passed in violation of natural justice. 2. To treat the return of income as valid. 3. To delete the addition of Rs.27,82,985/- made u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE

Varsha Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 510/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.507 To 510/Bang/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

evidence against the assessed person and cross examination was denied by the revenue. Under such circumstances, Hon’ble Courts held that there was violation of natural justice. 6.8 Therefore in our view, none of the decisions are of any help to assessee on merits in the present facts ... buttress the main matter connected with the quantum of addition, denial of opportunity to cross examine third parties did not amount to violation of natural justice. 6.12. Therefore, each case has to be decided on facts and circumstances of that case. In our considered opinion, relevant factors to be considered

Varsha Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 509/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.507 To 510/Bang/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

evidence against the assessed person and cross examination was denied by the revenue. Under such circumstances, Hon’ble Courts held that there was violation of natural justice. 6.8 Therefore in our view, none of the decisions are of any help to assessee on merits in the present facts ... buttress the main matter connected with the quantum of addition, denial of opportunity to cross examine third parties did not amount to violation of natural justice. 6.12. Therefore, each case has to be decided on facts and circumstances of that case. In our considered opinion, relevant factors to be considered

Varsha Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 508/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.507 To 510/Bang/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

evidence against the assessed person and cross examination was denied by the revenue. Under such circumstances, Hon’ble Courts held that there was violation of natural justice. 6.8 Therefore in our view, none of the decisions are of any help to assessee on merits in the present facts ... buttress the main matter connected with the quantum of addition, denial of opportunity to cross examine third parties did not amount to violation of natural justice. 6.12. Therefore, each case has to be decided on facts and circumstances of that case. In our considered opinion, relevant factors to be considered

Varsha Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 507/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.507 To 510/Bang/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

evidence against the assessed person and cross examination was denied by the revenue. Under such circumstances, Hon’ble Courts held that there was violation of natural justice. 6.8 Therefore in our view, none of the decisions are of any help to assessee on merits in the present facts ... buttress the main matter connected with the quantum of addition, denial of opportunity to cross examine third parties did not amount to violation of natural justice. 6.12. Therefore, each case has to be decided on facts and circumstances of that case. In our considered opinion, relevant factors to be considered

Dinesh Kumar Singhi, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 379/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Smt. G.P
Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 68Section 69C

direct evidence against the assessed person and cross examination was denied by the revenue. Under such circumstances, Honble Courts held that there was violation of natural justice. 6.8 Therefore in our view, none of the decisions are of any help to assessee on merits in the present facts ... buttress the main matter connected with the quantum of addition, denial of opportunity to cross examine third parties did not amount to violation of natural justice. 6.12. Therefore, each case has to be decided on facts and circumstances of that case. In our considered opinion, relevant factors to be considered

Dinesh Kumar Singhi, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 378/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Smt. G.P
Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 68Section 69C

direct evidence against the assessed person and cross examination was denied by the revenue. Under such circumstances, Honble Courts held that there was violation of natural justice. 6.8 Therefore in our view, none of the decisions are of any help to assessee on merits in the present facts ... buttress the main matter connected with the quantum of addition, denial of opportunity to cross examine third parties did not amount to violation of natural justice. 6.12. Therefore, each case has to be decided on facts and circumstances of that case. In our considered opinion, relevant factors to be considered

M/S. C. M.. Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5 (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2122/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita Nos. 2122 & 2123/Mum/2021 (A.Ys: 2010-11 & 2011-12) M/S Cm Bright Bars Pvt Vs. Dcit – 5(1) Ltd,705, B Wing, Shanti Aayakar Bhavan, Kamal, Dr. Babasaheb M.K.Road, Ambekar Road, Churchgate, Chinchpokli (E), Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai-400012. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc4577A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Viraj Mehta.Ar Respondent By : Mr.Ujjawal Kumar. Ar Date Of Hearing 24.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Mr.Viraj Mehta.ARFor Respondent: Mr.Ujjawal Kumar. AR
Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 32Section 68

Such disallowance is bad in law & erroneous in facts and therefore depreciation be allowed. 6. 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 opportunity of hearing

Natik Isharat Khan, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -27, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 413/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Shashank A. MehtaFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 115Section 263Section 44ASection 68

thereafter has passed ex-parte impugned order on 17.03.2021. According to the assessee, this order of the Ld. PCIT is bad for violation of natural justice. And has raised ground no. 1 against the action of Ld PCIT not granting proper opportunity to the assessee. In this regard, we note

Khangaram K Dewasi, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal

ITA 2807/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Of Shreenathji Metal & Alloys, Mumbai-21 Shop No. 5, Sultan Market, Opp. Vs. Ash Krishna Bldg. Andheri Ghatkoper Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aeepd 8897 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

natural A.O. was a legal assessment order in spite of violation of natural A.O. was a legal assessment order in spite of violation of natural justice. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case whether the Learned On the facts and circumstances of the case whether the Learned

Khangaram K. Dewasi, Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal

ITA 2806/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Of Shreenathji Metal & Alloys, Mumbai-21 Shop No. 5, Sultan Market, Opp. Vs. Ash Krishna Bldg. Andheri Ghatkoper Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aeepd 8897 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

natural A.O. was a legal assessment order in spite of violation of natural A.O. was a legal assessment order in spite of violation of natural justice. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case whether the Learned On the facts and circumstances of the case whether the Learned

Khangaram K. Dewasi, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal

ITA 2805/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Of Shreenathji Metal & Alloys, Mumbai-21 Shop No. 5, Sultan Market, Opp. Vs. Ash Krishna Bldg. Andheri Ghatkoper Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aeepd 8897 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

natural A.O. was a legal assessment order in spite of violation of natural A.O. was a legal assessment order in spite of violation of natural justice. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case whether the Learned On the facts and circumstances of the case whether the Learned

M/S Database Trading Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-12(2)(1) Presently ACIT, CC-7(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 708/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.708/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18) M/S. Database Trading Pvt. बिधम/ Acit, Circle-12(2)(1) Ltd. (Presently Acit, Cc- Vs. Office No. 310, B2B, 7(2), Mumbai) Agarwal Centre, Malad Room No.655, Aayakar (West), Mumbai-400064. Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcd3835C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Prateek Jha/Dr. Prayag Jha Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-49, Mumbai Dated 28.02.2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice That This Was An Ex-Parte Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A). According To The Ld. Ar, The Date Of Hearings Were Fixed In January & February, 2022 & The Assessee Was Out Of Station & Therefore Could Not Attend The Hearing & Therefore, Sought Adjournment. However, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Brushed Aside The Request Of The Assessee & Has Passed The Impugned Order, Which According To Ld. Ar Is In Violation Of Natural Justice & Therefore Wants Us To Set Aside The Impugned Order. 3. Having Gone Through The Exparte Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), We Note That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Passed The Order Without Hearing The Assessee Which Is Per-Se In Violation Of The Natural Justice. Therefore

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Jha/Dr. Prayag JhaFor Respondent: Shri P. R. Mane (DR)
Section 250(6)

brushed aside the request of the assessee and has passed the impugned order, which according to Ld. AR is in violation of natural justice and therefore wants us to set aside the impugned order. 3. Having gone through the exparte order of the Ld. CIT(A), we note that

Vikas Sharma, Mumbai vs. ITO WD-30(3) (5), Mumbai

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

ITA 49/MUM/2022[ 2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.47/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.49/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.48/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.51/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Vikas Sharma बिधम/ Ito-Ward-30(3)(5) B-202, Poonam Enclave, Kautilya Bhawan, Bandra Vs. Film City Road, Malad (E), Kurla Complex, Bandra Mumbai-400097. (E), Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Bbeps8095M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hari Raheja Revenue By: Ms. Vranda U Matkari (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Hari RahejaFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U Matkari (Sr. AR)
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

impugned action amounts to dismissing the appeal of the assessee without giving opportunity to the assessee which is in violation of natural justice. 3. Brief facts as noted by the AO are that the assessee is an individual who has derived income from salary, and income from other sources

Vikas Sharma, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 30(3) (5), Mumbai

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

ITA 48/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.47/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.49/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.48/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.51/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Vikas Sharma बिधम/ Ito-Ward-30(3)(5) B-202, Poonam Enclave, Kautilya Bhawan, Bandra Vs. Film City Road, Malad (E), Kurla Complex, Bandra Mumbai-400097. (E), Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Bbeps8095M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hari Raheja Revenue By: Ms. Vranda U Matkari (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Hari RahejaFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U Matkari (Sr. AR)
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

impugned action amounts to dismissing the appeal of the assessee without giving opportunity to the assessee which is in violation of natural justice. 3. Brief facts as noted by the AO are that the assessee is an individual who has derived income from salary, and income from other sources

Vikas Sharma, Mumbai vs. ITO WD-30(3) (5), Mumbai

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

ITA 47/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.47/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.49/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.48/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.51/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Vikas Sharma बिधम/ Ito-Ward-30(3)(5) B-202, Poonam Enclave, Kautilya Bhawan, Bandra Vs. Film City Road, Malad (E), Kurla Complex, Bandra Mumbai-400097. (E), Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Bbeps8095M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hari Raheja Revenue By: Ms. Vranda U Matkari (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Hari RahejaFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U Matkari (Sr. AR)
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

impugned action amounts to dismissing the appeal of the assessee without giving opportunity to the assessee which is in violation of natural justice. 3. Brief facts as noted by the AO are that the assessee is an individual who has derived income from salary, and income from other sources

Shri.J M Vrushabendraiah, Hospet vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 299/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R., D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250

buttress the main matter connected with the quantum of addition, denial of opportunity to cross examine third parties did not amount to violation of natural justice. 6.14. At the outset we also hold that the statements recorded are secondary and subordinate evidence, and therefore cross examination is not relevant. Ld.A0

Dy CIT - 8 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tanish Homes & Construction P. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 113/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2011-12
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153(3)Section 153ASection 68

stated that the sufficient opportunities to produce the parties were provided to the assessee and there was no violation of natural justice. The ld. AO submitted that his predecessor had made independent enquiries before completion of the assessment and all related facts has been made brought in the assessment order

DCIT CC 3(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Varad Vinayak Textiles P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is allowed

ITA 998/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc-3(2) Vs. M/S. Varad Vinayak Central Range – 3 Textiles P Ltd., Room No. 1913, Air 605, Business Classic, India Bldg, Nariman Chincholi Bunder Rd., Point, Mumbai – Malad (W) 400021. Mumbai – 400064. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccv1777G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Achal Sharma. Cit Dr Respondent By : None Date Of Hearing 25.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 153A & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri. Achal Sharma. CIT DRFor Respondent: None
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

evident from dates on record." However, no details were asked by Ld. AO relating to investments made by the appellant, which clearly is violation of natural justice It is our plea before Hon'ble CIT that such assessment order should be rendered null and void. GROUND - 3 "On the facts