← 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

Chouhan Builders India Housing Development P. L Td vs. Mumbai

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

ITA 4793/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalchouhan Builders India Housing Development P. Ltd. 104A, Sajid Tower, Amboli, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400058 Pan: Aaccc1839Q ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit -9(2)(1), R.No. 665A, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. K. Shivram With Ms. Neelam Jadhav Respondent By : Sh. Pankaj Kumar Date Of Hearing : 10/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/06/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’] Vide Order Dated 31.05.2019 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit (A) 16 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit (A)) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Assessment Of The Total Income Of The Appellant At Rs.15,00,000/- As Against Loss Of Rs. 89,84,401.24 Returned By The Appellant. 2. Order Dt.31/05/19 Passed By Ld. Cit(A) As Well As Order Dt.27/12/18 Passed By Ld. Ao Were Bad In Law As The Same Were Not Based On Facts But Were Based On Assumptions Or Surmises Or Erroneous Findings & Has Not Considered Submissions Made By Appellant Or Authorities Cited By Appellant.

For Appellant: Sh. K. Shivram with Ms. Neelam JadhavFor Respondent: Sh. Pankaj Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 69A

Supreme Court’s decision in Andaman Timber Industries (supra). Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that since there is violation of Natural Justice, the proceedings should start from where there is violation. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid discussion, we set-aside the impugned order

Shri Kalyanji Bhagat by Jayantilal K. Bhagat L/H, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT-22(1), Mumbai

ITA 2040/MUM/2020[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 1992-93

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Paras JainFor Respondent: Smt. Jacinta Zimik Vashai (DR)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

because the assessee failed to appear and failed to rebut the findings of the AO. In such a scenario, since there is violation of natural justice, we restore the issues back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for denovo adjudication of the issues. 9. In the aforesaid facts

Shri Kalyanji Bhagat by Jayantilal K. Bhagat L/H, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT-22(1), Mumbai

ITA 2032/MUM/2020[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 1992-93

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Paras JainFor Respondent: Smt. Jacinta Zimik Vashai (DR)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

because the assessee failed to appear and failed to rebut the findings of the AO. In such a scenario, since there is violation of natural justice, we restore the issues back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for denovo adjudication of the issues. 9. In the aforesaid facts

Shri Kalyanji Bhagat by Jayantilal K. Bhagat L/H, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT-22(1), Mumbai

ITA 2031/MUM/2020[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 1992-93

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Paras JainFor Respondent: Smt. Jacinta Zimik Vashai (DR)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

because the assessee failed to appear and failed to rebut the findings of the AO. In such a scenario, since there is violation of natural justice, we restore the issues back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for denovo adjudication of the issues. 9. In the aforesaid facts

Shri Manish Manila Gosar HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO - 26(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1661/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am Shri Manish Manila Gosar Huf Ito-26(2)(2) N. M. Associates, 1, Tarlika, Mumbai-400 051 Ground Floor, 216, Vs. Sir Bhalchandra Road, Matunga, Mumbai-400 019 Pan/Gir No. Aafhm 2740 A (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Nitin Furia Respondent By : Ms. Usha Shrote Date Of Hearing : 04.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.04.2022

For Appellant: Shri Nitin FuriaFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Shrote
Section 234Section 234BSection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

therefore direct the Learned Assessing Officer to drop the penalty proceedings u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5) Violation of Natural Justice: a. No opportunity was provided by the Hon.CIT (A) to the appellant in gross violation of the principles of equity and natural justice

Chetana Dilip Doshi, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid findings

ITA 5765/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay, CIT–DR
Section 131Section 142Section 143Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

that not providing opportunity to the appellant for cross examination of the party on whose statement is relied 1)4 assessing officer. Amounts violation of natural justice. 5. The learned CIT(A) failed to see that agreement for Rs. 22,75,500/- does not exist on the record

Mr. Faiyaz Mohamedali Mithani, Mumbau vs. ITO WD. 17(1) (4)New WD. 17(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1784/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 1784/मुं/2021(िन.व.2010-11) Mr. Faiyaz Mohammedali Mithani Vs I.T.O., Ward 17(1)(4) (New Ward Flat No.602, 6Th Floor, Shivam Co-Op. 17(1)(1) As Per Portal, Kautilya Bhavan, Hsg Soc. Ltd, Near Versova Metro Bandra (E), Bandra Kurla Complex, Station, Seven Bungalows, J.P. Road Mumbai-400 051 Andheri(W), Mumbai-400 058 Pan : Aptm0643M Appellant Respondent

Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

r.w.s, 147, the Ld. A.O. in ex-parte order levied penalty of Rs. 7,66,3207-u/s.271(l)(c). * 4. Serious violation of natural justice. 3 4.1 The Hon'ble C.I.T. (A) (NFAC), has erred in law and facts of the case in disposing of the appeal in complete haste ... appeal. 4.3 The Hon'ble C.I.T. (A) (NFAC) has not granted the opportunity for personal hearing to your Appellant in serious violation of natural justice. 4.4 The Hon'ble C.I.T. (A) (NFAC) has dismissed the appeal without giving enough time and opportunity to your Appellant to put the submission

Sarita Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(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 382/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija
Section 10(38)

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

Sarita Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 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 381/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija
Section 10(38)

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

Sarita Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 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 380/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija
Section 10(38)

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

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

In the result assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3153/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Snehalatha Singhi, The Deputy Flat No. 101, Commissioner Of Pride Elite, Income Tax, No. 10, Museum Road, Circle – 1 (1)(2), Bangalore – 560 001. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Ajmps0427Q Appellant Respondent : Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija, Assessee By Advocates : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 15-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 10.08.2018 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 31/03/2015 For Year Under Consideration Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,31,57,680/-. Ld.Ao Observed That Assessee Has Claimed Exemption Under Section 10(38) Amounting To Rs.3,10,94,952/- Towards Sale Of Equity Shares. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija
Section 10(38)

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. Some of the decisions are Page 8 of 11 only decided by Hon’ble Courts on challenge of the validity of reopening ... 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. Therefore, each case has to be decided on facts and circumstances of that case. In our considered opinion, relevant factors to be considered

DCIT 9(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S B. Chopda Construction P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is Partly Allowed

ITA 1513/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1513/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit-9(2)(1) बिधम/ M/S. B. Chopda Construction Room No.665A, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, A-208, Sagar Tech Plaza, Churchgate, Mumbai- Sakinaka Junction, Andheri, 400020. Mumbai-400072. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb4214G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohan Tandon Revenue By: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “11. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Restricting The Suppressed Profit To The Extent Of 12.50% Of Bogus Purchases, When The Assessee Could Not Produce Any Parties Or Evidence That The Said Goods Were Purchased A.Y.2012-13 & The Onus Of Proving Genuineness Of Purchases Was Not Discharged By The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Mohan TandonFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. AR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147

must be allowed to cross- examine him. The range of natural justice is wide and whether or not there has been 23 A.Y.2012-13 violation of natural justice would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case 6.223 The Supreme Court had also an occasion to consider the applicability

Sh. Anil Vashist, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 6195/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 132Section 153A

differ with the decision of learned Commissioner(Appeals) on the issue. 9. As regards the ground raised by the assessee regarding alleged violation of natural justice, on verification of facts on record, we are of the view that the assessee has failed to factually prove the aforesaid allegation. In view

Raghav Softech Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 20(4), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7127/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Raghav Softech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Vardhman Grand Plaza, Manglam Ward-20(4) Place, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi New Delhi Aaecr2527G Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.01.2022

Section 147Section 148Section 69

reported at 127 DTR 241 order dated 02/09/2015 and. Bombay high court decision in case of H.R. Mehta reported at 387ITR 561) This violation of natural justice in my view is a serious flaw and goes to the root of the matter and nullifies the entire proceedings." (Emphasis Added ... assessee must he allowed to cross-examine him. The range of natural justice is wide and whether or not, .there has been violation of natural justice would depend on the facts and 43 circumstances of the case." 4.14. The Supreme Court had also an occasion to consider the applicability

M/S. Asaria Lalji Vador, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -7, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 559/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Blem/S. Asaria Lalji Vador V. Office Of Pcit – 27 C-21, Mahavir Jyot Room No. 401, 4Th Floor Opp. Odeon Shopping Centre Tower No. 6 Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai -400077 Vashi Railway Station Building Complex Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 Pan: Aabpv0149A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pradip Kapasi Department By : Ms. Shailja Rai

For Appellant: Shri Pradip KapasiFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54E

manner. c. Your appellant pleads that such an order of PCIT be held to be bad in law and be quashed. 2. SERIOUS VIOLATION OF NATURAL JUSTICE The Ld. PCIT erred in law and on facts in completing the a. revisionary proceedings in a complete haste and without giving sufficient

Aggressive Digital Systems Private Limited, Haryana vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 874/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 874/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Aggressive Digital Systems Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, Plot No. 596-597, Sector-8, Imt Ward-1(1), Manesar, Gurgaon, Haryana-122050 Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aanca7751J Assessee By : Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Anand Kumar Kedia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.01.2022

For Appellant: Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anand Kumar Kedia, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

economic analysis 4. That on the facts and in law, the Learned AO/TPO grossly erred in undertaking an opaque analysis and acting in violation of natural justice by not sharing the search methodology, keywords used, criterions of selection/rejection of companies, number of companies rejected by way of applying various filters

Shahshib Minority Welfare and Educational Society, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(E), Bangalore

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

ITA 2875/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Gangadhar Saastry, ITPFor Respondent: Sri.Ananda H., Addl.CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(2)(a)Section 13(2)(b)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 251(2)

registration of the trust u/s 12AA (3). Appellant was deprived of opportunity as required under section 251(2) hence CIT(A) order is violation of natural justice considering the facts Hon’ble ITAT may kindly allow registration to the trust and render justice to the appellant. 5. Appellant craves

Amal Allana, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-30(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 4371/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 154Section 22Section 24

evident from the IT record as well as in the MCD record which showing commercial use of basement. Therefore, there is a violation of natural justice which is bad in law. 4. The ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on the facts in confirming the action ... r.w.23(l)(a). Hence the ratio of this judgment is not applicable in the case of appellant. Therefore, there is a violation of natural justice which is bad in law.” 6. The ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A). He submitted that

Madan Mohan Tiwari, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 29(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stands

ITA 6925/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year : 2008-09 Madan Mohan Tiwari, Vs Income Tax Officer, J-145, Kalkaji, Ward-29(3), New Delhi-110019 Room No.1015, 10Th Floor, Block-E2, Dr. S.P. Mukharjee Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aeqpt1251F Appellant Respondent

Section 147

Assessing Officer could not have done assessment proceedings when assessment proceedings were already pending in an earlier proceeding challenged. 6. Challenge to violation of natural justice.-Tax Effect Rs.65,79,313/- 6.1.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred ... facts in not appreciating that assessment order was invalid due to violation of natural justice caused by Assessing Officer by not giving copy of survey report even when demanded by assessee during course of assessment proceedings, not giving copy of bank statements collected by him through s.131 notices

Rbj Infratech P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-20(3), New Delhi

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 9530/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

illegal, arbitrary being Page 1 of 5 ITA No.- 9530/Del/2019 RBJ Infratech Pvt. Ltd., passed in utter violation of natural justice as the appellant was not given show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act specifying the exact charge / limb under which the A.O. initiated Penalty