← 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

ITO WD 3(1), Kolkata vs. Sapphire Global Finance Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1590/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148ASection 68

opportunity of cross examination of such witness in spite of a specific request to that effect from the appellant. This is clear violation of natural justice. In fact, whether name of appellant company is figuring in such statement and if so, whether appellant company is shown as intermediary or beneficiary

ITO WD-3(1), Kolkata vs. Sapphire Global Finance Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1506/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148ASection 68

opportunity of cross examination of such witness in spite of a specific request to that effect from the appellant. This is clear violation of natural justice. In fact, whether name of appellant company is figuring in such statement and if so, whether appellant company is shown as intermediary or beneficiary

ITO WD-3(1), Kolkata vs. Sapphire Global Finance (P) Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1454/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148ASection 68

opportunity of cross examination of such witness in spite of a specific request to that effect from the appellant. This is clear violation of natural justice. In fact, whether name of appellant company is figuring in such statement and if so, whether appellant company is shown as intermediary or beneficiary

Zento Exim Private Limited, Ram Nagar Extension vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5131/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2023-24] Zento Exim Private Limited, Acit, 1/4331, T/F, Kh No.587 Ram Vikas Bhawan, Ito, Nagar Extension, Vs New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110032 Pan-Aljpk8665M Assessee Revenue Assessee By Shri Gaurav Jain, Adv. Shri Tarun Chanana, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Amish S Gupt, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.01.2026

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148BSection 69A

upon the statement of third party (Mr. Manoj Kandal) without providing an opportunity of cross examination to the assessee which is a gross violation of natural justice. 3.3 That the Id. CIT(A) erred in law in holding that the statement of Mr. Manoj Kandpal recorded under section

Santosh Bai Bhatevra, Jhabua vs. ITO Ward -1, Ratlam

In the result, the impugned order partly allowing the first

ITA 519/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisantosh Bai Bhatevra, Ito Ward-1, बनाम/ 1, Rupkheda, Ranapur, Ratlam. Vs. Jhabua, Ratlam.(M.P) (Pan: Asqpb6129D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Shrawan Gupta, Adv. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253Section 69A

then submitted that under these peculiar facts & circumstances continuing with scrutiny & subsequent addition resulted in undue hardship to small taxpayer & amounts to violation of natural justice. The Bench pointed out to the Ld. AR as to whether this was a ground before the Ld. CIT(A) or whether any challenge

Sri Venkateswara Orphanage Kaduveli, Thanjavur vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Trichy

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1679/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T
Section 10ASection 11Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144B

ld.CIT(A) had not provided opportunity of hearing to the assessee upon receipt remand report from the Assessing Officer which is in violation of natural justice. 10. Per contra, the ld.DR reiterated the findings of the first appellate authority. Apart from it, the ld.DR also argued that order

Anuj Tiwari, Dhar vs. ACIT(Central)-2, Indore

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 498/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 132ASection 133ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI

Anuj Tiwari, Dhar vs. ACIT(Central)-2, Indore

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 496/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 132ASection 133ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI

Anuj Tiwari, Dhar vs. ACIT(Central)-2, Indore

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 495/IND/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 132ASection 133ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI

Balkan Chemicals Private Limited, Thane vs. ITO 1(1) Kalyan, Mohan Plaza

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are

ITA 6504/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia(Physical Hearing)

Section 254(1)

aside. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) in violation of natural justice the same should be set aside. 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred

ACIT-1(1), Indore vs. Kriti Nutrients Limited, Indore

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 780/IND/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 246ASection 250Section 253

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M

Manish Pahwa, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 45(2), New Delhi

The appeal is partly allowed with consequences to follow as

ITA 3270/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2011-12 Manish Pahwa, Vs Ito, J-554, Rajouri Garden, Ward-45(2), New Delhi– 110 027. Delhi. Pan: Aaapp0676M

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Gulati, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 69Section 69C

Gopal Kumar provided only accommodation entries, the assessee should have been allowed to question this allegation. Denial of such opportunity is a violation of natural justice, but the assessee was never confronted with those persons or findings beyond a general show-cause. This alone makes the addition vulnerable

Pinnacle Consrto and Ecohomes Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. DCIT Circle-4, Pune

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2818/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2818/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Pinnacle Contro & V Dcit, Ecohomes Pvt. Ltd., S Circle-4, Pune. Madhav Heritage, Tilak Road, Sadashiv Peth, Pune – 411030. Pan: Aaecp0400E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas P. Bora Revenue By Shri Madhukar Anand-Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 07/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 08/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18Dated 01.10.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 Of The Act, Dated 27.08.2021. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Reassessment Bad In Law.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 250(6)

failed to consider ITA No.2818/PUN/2025 [A] the fact that the said addition was purely on the basis of presumption and surmises. 3. Violation of natural justice The learned CIT(A)-NFAC failed to grant personal hearing and to consider the detailed written submissions and judicial precedents relied upon

Maharshi Karve Stree Shikshan Sansthas Employees Coop Society Ltd, Pune vs. ITO Easssessment Center, Delhi

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

ITA 668/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anand KhandewaleFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale (Virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

hearing through a virtual conference, which is a recognized mode of hearing in faceless proceedings. The denial of a personal hearing is a violation of natural justice and procedural fairness, as established in judicial pronouncements.  Failure to Consider Previous Assessment: The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider the assessment order

Rainbow Vanijya Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1891/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 44A

third party; hence, such presumption is inapplicable. The AO's failure to furnish copies ofseized material relied upon against the assessee amounts to violation of natural justice, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kishan Chand Chellaram v. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC),. The Hon'ble Supreme

Income Tax Officer, Rohtak vs. Pankaj Jain, Rohtak

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2295/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaincome Tax Officer, Vs. Pankaj Jain, Rohtak. 123/34, Vishwakarma Kathmandi, Rohtak – 124 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Azupj6345A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Shri Naveen Gupta, Advocate Shri Nakul Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora,Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2025 Date Of Order : 30.12.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 04.02.2025 For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Upholding The Validity Of The Notice Issued Under Section 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Without The Proper & Mandatory Compliance With The Provisions Of Section 148A(B). 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Further Erred In Law & On Facts By Failing To Consider That The Then Ao Has Given Notice U/S 148A(B) To Assessee On 31.03.2022

For Appellant: Shri Shri Naveen Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora,Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 292BSection 37(1)

148A(d) of the Act two days before the time limit given for compliance to the assessee in the statutory notice in violation of natural justice, recording irrelevant facts other than the reason communicated in the order passed u/s 148A(d) of the Act and issuing notice ... passed two days before the time limit given for compliance to the assessee in the statutory notice in violation of natural justice. Further we observed that issuing notice u/s 148 of the IT Act without obtaining proper sanction from the appropriate authority defeats the whole purpose of re-assessment

Gopal Aggarwal, Faridabad vs. ITO(OSD) Faridabad, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2290/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Manish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 272A(1)(d)

time to monitor Departmental activity and that mere uploading on the portal does not constitute sufficient service if it leads to a violation of natural justice. 8.1 In the present case, the non-compliance on the part of the assessee was on account of absence of actual knowledge

Aggarwal Agro Industries, Karnal vs. ITO-Ward-1, Karnal

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

ITA 2544/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Manav Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 292CSection 69C

cross- examination. Secondary evidences cannot be relied on as if neither the person who prepared the documents nor the witnesses are produced. The violation of natural justice renders the assessment void” (vi) Accordingly, assessee requested that the returned income of the assessee be accepted. 4 3. However, Assessing Officer

Meena Suresh Raithatha, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 27(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4813/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Deepak KanabarFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 65BSection 69

after more than 2 ½ years of the agreement date - Refer Para 6 & APB Page Nos. 84 to 86; e. That there being serious violation of natural justice in not providing an opportunity to cross-examine DDG, the assessment proceedings are vitiated and bad-in-law - Refer Para 11 & APB Page

Naresh Amratlal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-27(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed allowed

ITA 6142/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Respondent: Assessee by Shri Jitendra Singh & Shri
Section 115BSection 148Section 69A

third party, for making the alleged addition, resulting party, for making the alleged addition, resulting party, for making the alleged addition, resulting violation of natural justice. violation of natural justice. Ш. Addition of Rs. 57,50,000 u/s 69A Ш. Addition