violation of natural justice — 881 case laws

Mohit Jain, Tonk vs. Income Tax Officer, Tonk

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 757/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Jaideep Malik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gauta, CIT-DR

even reference the documentary record establishing that the said transactions had been disclosed, verified, and reconciled. This constitutes a fundamental procedural error and violation of natural justice. The Learned CIT(A), in mechanically upholding the impugned addition, has further compounded the error by failing to independently assess the evidentiary record

Shubham Jain, Tonk, Rajasthan vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - Tonk, Maha Devali, Tonk

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 756/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Jaideep Malik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gauta, CIT-DR

Section 153CSection 69C

even reference the documentary record establishing that the said transactions had been disclosed, verified, and reconciled. This constitutes a fundamental procedural error and violation of natural justice. The Learned CIT(A), in mechanically upholding the impugned addition, has further compounded the error by failing to independently assess the evidentiary record

Ahluwalia Erectors & Fabricators Private Limited, Kota vs. DCIT/ACIT Cir-2, Kota

In the result the appeal of

ITA 199/JPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 438Section 43B

grounds of appeal reveals the following issues: Ground No. 1 & 2: Challenge the appellate order as lacking jurisdiction and being passed in violation of natural justice. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has clearly recorded in paras 6.1 and 6.2 of the impugned order that multiple opportunities were provided both

Ahluwalia Erectors & Fabricators Private Limited, Kota vs. DCIT/ACIT Cir-2, Kota

In the result the appeal of

ITA 198/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 43B

grounds of appeal reveals the following issues: Ground No. 1 & 2: Challenge the appellate order as lacking jurisdiction and being passed in violation of natural justice. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has clearly recorded in paras 6.1 and 6.2 of the impugned order that multiple opportunities were provided both

Ahluwalia Erectors & Fabricators Private Limited, Kota vs. DCIT/ACIT Cir-2, Kota

In the result the appeal of

ITA 197/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 438Section 43B

grounds of appeal reveals the following issues: Ground No. 1 & 2: Challenge the appellate order as lacking jurisdiction and being passed in violation of natural justice. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has clearly recorded in paras 6.1 and 6.2 of the impugned order that multiple opportunities were provided both

Aditya Saini, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 6(2), Jpr, Jaipur

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

ITA 1571/JPR/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Nov 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1571/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Aditya Saini बनाम Income Tax Officer, 1211 B3 Barkat Nagar, Gandhi Vs. Ward 6(2), Jaipur Nagar, Jaipur अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: IFVPS8965E निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Sunil Morani, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख /

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Morani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 144

Sunita Singh [2008] 303 ITR 221 (Raj.) Assessment made without issuing proper notices or providing a reasonable opportunity is invalid. Violation of natural justice renders the ex-parte assessment liable to be quashed. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCHES, "SMC" JAIPUR IN ITA NO. 5/JP/2024 ASHISH JAIN

Abdul Majid Muhammed Hussein Tanwar, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(4)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4063/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 56Section 56(2)(x)

void also because the same is passed in contravention of section 144B of the Act as well. 2. On violation of Natural Justice: 2.1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in affirming the assessment order passed by the Ld. Assessing

Menaba Charitable Trust, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(Exemptions), Ahmedabad

ITA 1361/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1361/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Menaba Charitable Trust The Ito बनाम/ 26, Mahavir Jain Soc., Ward-1 (Exemptions) V/S. Bapunagar Ahmedabad – 380 015 Ahmedabad – 380 024 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaatm 2171 N (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rushin Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 24/12/2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-2018. 2. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Rushin Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr.DR

Section 11Section 115BSection 250

also submitted that the AO made the addition without issuing a show-cause notice and without granting proper opportunity of hearing, resulting in violation of natural justice. The assessee contended that since the donations were duly recorded in the books of account and credited either to the income and expenditure

Ashu Ashok, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1046/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR

Section 153ASection 153DSection 271Section 68

evidence. The Revenue need not prove the reverse until the assessee discharges this burden. • The Supreme Court has held that there is no violation of natural justice unless actual prejudice is demonstrated. Hence, an assessee alleging non- application of mind must establish tangible prejudice that could have been avoided

Ashu Ashok, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1045/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR

Section 153ASection 153DSection 271Section 68

evidence. The Revenue need not prove the reverse until the assessee discharges this burden. • The Supreme Court has held that there is no violation of natural justice unless actual prejudice is demonstrated. Hence, an assessee alleging non- application of mind must establish tangible prejudice that could have been avoided

Ashu Asok, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1044/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR

Section 153ASection 153DSection 271Section 68

evidence. The Revenue need not prove the reverse until the assessee discharges this burden. • The Supreme Court has held that there is no violation of natural justice unless actual prejudice is demonstrated. Hence, an assessee alleging non- application of mind must establish tangible prejudice that could have been avoided

Navneetbhai Ramanlal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 223/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.223/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Navneetbhai Ramanlal Patel The Ito बनाम/ 19, New Ambica Park Society Ward-2(1)(2) V/S. D Cabin Sabarmati Ahmedabad – 380 051 Ahmedabad – 380 019 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aqzpp 2479 D (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hiren Trivedi, Ar Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 14/10/2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-2017. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Trivedi, ARFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

addition on account of fictitious loss, contending that the order was passed without due consideration of evidence and in violation of natural justice. However, during the appellate proceedings, despite several notices issued through the ITBA portal on multiple dates, the assessee failed to submit any written submissions or documentary evidence