← All Phrases

“audi alteram partem”

Natural JusticeAudi Alteram PartemAudi Alteram Partem490 judgments

The decision most relied on for audi alteram partem is 372 92.(2019) 13 SCC 185: MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS 93 (1 SCC 248), cited in 176 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on audi alteram partem

372 92.(2019) 13 SCC 185: MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS 93
1 SCC 248 · 1978 · Reported
176
citing judgments

Audi alteram partem, or the right to be heard, is a fundamental principle of natural justice that applies to all quasi-judicial proceedings, including those before tax authorities.

Rajesh Kumar v. DCIT
287 ITR 91 · 2006 · Supreme Court
121
citing judgments

When a statutory authority takes action that can lead to civil or adverse consequences for an individual, the principles of natural justice, particularly the right to be heard (audi alteram partem), must be implicitly followed, even if the relevant statute does not expressly provide for it.

GTC Industries Ltd. v. ACIT
65 ITD 380 · 1998 · ITAT
119
citing judgments

Formal cross-examination of witnesses who make adverse reports is not an invariable requirement of natural justice (audi alteram partem) in income tax proceedings. Assessees must have a fair opportunity to meet adverse evidence, but this does not mandate formal cross-examination.

Sahara India (Firm,) Lucknow v. Commissioner of Income Tax
14 SCC 151 · 2008 · Reported
106
citing judgments

This case establishes principles for determining the validity of a special audit direction issued under Section 142(2A) and its impact on the extended period of limitation under Section 153(3) Explanation 1(iii), often considered in the context of natural justice.

Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727; Haryana Financial Corporation v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja
3 SCC 364 · 1996 · Reported
93
citing judgments

Procedural irregularities, especially where initiation was valid but completion was flawed, are often curable and may not automatically invalidate an entire order. This principle, tied to natural justice, means minor defects in procedure can be remedied without voiding the proceedings.

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
4 SCC 379 · 1980 · Reported
62
citing judgments

Even a purely administrative order that entails civil consequences must adhere to the principles of natural justice, particularly the rule of audi alteram partem, ensuring a fair hearing. The concept of 'civil consequences' broadly encompasses any impact on a citizen's civil life, beyond just property or personal rights.

International Forest Co. v. CIT
101 ITR 721 · 1975 · High Court
54
citing judgments

In a best judgment assessment, tax authorities cannot act arbitrarily or base conclusions solely on guesswork; additions must be supported by evidence or material on record, and principles of natural justice require communicating adverse material to the assessee.

Lalchand Bhagat Ambikaram v. CIT
83 ITR 508 · 1972 · High Court
53
citing judgments

The principle of natural justice, specifically the right to be heard (audi alteram partem), must be strictly followed in quasi-judicial proceedings. An assessment order is invalid if the assessee is denied the opportunity to cross-examine third parties whose statements or evidence form the basis for additions.

Judgments citing audi alteram partem

Trijal Enterprise Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 262/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.261, 262 & 263/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Trijal Enterprise Private Limited Vs Acit, Central Circle-2, At-Hall No.6, Block-2, Bmc Bhubaneswar Bhawani Mall, Saheed Nagar, Khordha-751007, Bhubaneswar Pan No. :Aafct 9662 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2, All Dated 25.03.2025 For The Assessment Years 2017-2018, 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Confirming The Penalty Levy Under 270A Of The Act. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That For The Impugned Assessment Years The Assessee Has Filed Original Return For The Assessment Year 2017- 18 Disclosing A Loss Of Rs.8,30,930/-, For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Income Of Rs.20,46,140/- & For Assessment Year 2019-20 An Income Of Rs.17,27,850/-. There Was A Search On The Premises Of The Assessee On 03/04/2019. In Response To Notice Issued U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Disclosing A Loss

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 153ASection 270ASection 271A

Such a notice does not enable the assessee to effectively exercise his right of defence, thereby violating the principle of audi alteram partem. Consequently, the imposition of penalty on the basis of such a defective notice is rendered unsustainable in law. Judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Courts have consistently

Trijal Enterprise Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 261/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.261, 262 & 263/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Trijal Enterprise Private Limited Vs Acit, Central Circle-2, At-Hall No.6, Block-2, Bmc Bhubaneswar Bhawani Mall, Saheed Nagar, Khordha-751007, Bhubaneswar Pan No. :Aafct 9662 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2, All Dated 25.03.2025 For The Assessment Years 2017-2018, 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Confirming The Penalty Levy Under 270A Of The Act. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That For The Impugned Assessment Years The Assessee Has Filed Original Return For The Assessment Year 2017- 18 Disclosing A Loss Of Rs.8,30,930/-, For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Income Of Rs.20,46,140/- & For Assessment Year 2019-20 An Income Of Rs.17,27,850/-. There Was A Search On The Premises Of The Assessee On 03/04/2019. In Response To Notice Issued U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Disclosing A Loss

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 153ASection 270ASection 271A

Such a notice does not enable the assessee to effectively exercise his right of defence, thereby violating the principle of audi alteram partem. Consequently, the imposition of penalty on the basis of such a defective notice is rendered unsustainable in law. Judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Courts have consistently

Bapu Foundation for Learning on Mind and Discourse, Pune vs. CIT Exemptions, Pune

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

ITA 185/PUN/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. Basic principles of natural Justice being opportunity of being heard Audi alteram partem was not exercised by CIT Exemptions. Proceeding were initiated by CIT Exemptions against renewal applications of 12A AND 80G registrations filed wherein notice asking ... Similar grounds have been raised in ITA No.185/PUN/2025 which read as under: 1. Basic principles of natural justice being opportunity of being heard - Audi alteram partem was not exercised by CIT Exemptions. Proceeding were initiated by CIT Exemptions against renewal applications of 12A AND 80G registrations filed wherein notice asking

Bapu Foundation for Learning on Mind and Discourse, Pune vs. CIT Exemptions, Pune

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

ITA 172/PUN/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. Basic principles of natural Justice being opportunity of being heard Audi alteram partem was not exercised by CIT Exemptions. Proceeding were initiated by CIT Exemptions against renewal applications of 12A AND 80G registrations filed wherein notice asking ... Similar grounds have been raised in ITA No.185/PUN/2025 which read as under: 1. Basic principles of natural justice being opportunity of being heard - Audi alteram partem was not exercised by CIT Exemptions. Proceeding were initiated by CIT Exemptions against renewal applications of 12A AND 80G registrations filed wherein notice asking

Prasanna Shrikant Patankar, Satara vs. ITO WD No - 04, Satara

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1693/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1693/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Prasanna Shrikant Patankar V The Income Tax Officer, No.35, Raviwar Peth, S. Ward-4, Satara. Azad Chowk, Karad, Satara – 415110. Maharashtra. Pan: Alypp1014A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sachin P. Kumar Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 13/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2025

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

NFAC has passed the order u/s 250 without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard and thus violating the principles of "audi alteram partem. 3. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has passed the order u/s 250 without application of mind

ITO, Nashik vs. Ankit Naresh Tulsian, Nashik

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2233/PUN/2024[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 131Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

transactions as sham. Thus, the AO has failed to comply with section 142(3) of the Act as well as the principles of audi alteram partem thereby resulting in gross violation of principles of natural justice. I also find that the AO in this case has not conducted any independent

Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur vs. Rahul Kathuria, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 152/RPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.151 & 152/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 The Income Tax Officer/Income Tax Officer-3(1) Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Jindal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 148

against the assessee without enabling the assessee to put forth his defence, such procedure defeats the rules of natural justice of doctrine of audi alteram partem. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Amitabh 14. Bachhan (2016) 384 ITR 200 (SC) while upholding the mandatory requirement

Income Tax Officer, Raipur vs. Rahul Kathuria, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 151/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.151 & 152/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 The Income Tax Officer/Income Tax Officer-3(1) Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Jindal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 148

against the assessee without enabling the assessee to put forth his defence, such procedure defeats the rules of natural justice of doctrine of audi alteram partem. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Amitabh 14. Bachhan (2016) 384 ITR 200 (SC) while upholding the mandatory requirement

C vs. Aradhana Charitable Trust, Mumbaivs.Income Tax Officer Exemption-1(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5615/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosaina.Ys: 2017-18

Section 234BSection 250

issues and considering the submissions made by the parties, principles of natural justice and also keeping in view the doctrine of audi alteram partem, I set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to decide the issues afresh

Vijaya Prakash Nagori, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 32(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3392/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Om Prakash Kantvijaya Prakash Nagori Vs. Ito, Ward, 32(2)(1) 409/C, Abhar Jp Road, Kautilya Bhawan, C-41- Seven Bungalows, Andhere 43, Avenue, 3, Near (W), Mumbai – 400 061. Videsh Bhavan, G Block Bkc Pan/Gir No. Aekpr2943H (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 263oSection 68

allowed to be cross-examined by assessee. The relevant part of the Bench’s decision is as follows: - “As regards the dictum ‘Audi Alteram Partem’ the assessee’s basic contention was that the statements of witnesses and materials which were relied upon by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order

Vishwas Shashikant Choksi, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1399/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

natural justice under the Income component of natural justice under the Income-tax Act. Natural tax Act. Natural justice, under the doctrine of audi alteram partem, requires justice, under the doctrine of audi alteram partem, requires justice, under the doctrine of audi alteram partem, requires that the assessee should have

Gautam Ashok Choksi, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1398/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

natural justice under the Income component of natural justice under the Income-tax Act. Natural tax Act. Natural justice, under the doctrine of audi alteram partem, requires justice, under the doctrine of audi alteram partem, requires justice, under the doctrine of audi alteram partem, requires that the assessee should have

Gaurav Abhay Choksi, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1397/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

natural justice under the Income component of natural justice under the Income-tax Act. Natural tax Act. Natural justice, under the doctrine of audi alteram partem, requires justice, under the doctrine of audi alteram partem, requires justice, under the doctrine of audi alteram partem, requires that the assessee should have

Vikram Sajanlal Choksi, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1391/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

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

Section 153ASection 68

right of formal cross-examination is not a component of natural justice under the Income-tax Act. Natural justice, under the doctrine of audi alteram partem, requires that the assessee should have a fair and reasonable opportunity to see, comment, and criticise the evidence or record relied upon

Tanu Gautam Choksi, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1345/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

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

Section 153A

right of formal cross-examination is not a component of natural justice under the Income-tax Act. Natural justice, under the doctrine of audi alteram partem, requires that the assessee should have a fair and reasonable opportunity to see, comment, and criticise the evidence or record relied upon

Sidharth Abhay Choksi, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1344/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

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

Section 153ASection 68

right of formal cross-examination is not a component of natural justice under the Income-tax Act. Natural justice, under the doctrine of audi alteram partem, requires that the assessee should have a fair and reasonable opportunity to see, comment, and criticise the evidence or record relied upon

Ashish Shashikant Choksi, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1341/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

natural justice under the Income component of natural justice under the Income-tax Act. Natural tax Act. Natural justice, under the doctrine of audi alteram partem, requires justice, under the doctrine of audi alteram partem, requires justice, under the doctrine of audi alteram partem, requires that the assessee should have

Arun Rajput, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-45(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 1406/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 69A

more over the same was clearly depicted in my ITR and Books. This is purely unjustified, unlawful and against the principles of Audi alteram partem and natural justice and it is prayed to be deleted fully. So I gain request you to kindly go through the submission ... Assessing Officer and we will again submit at the time of hearing. This is purely unjustified, unlawful and against the principles of audi alteram partem and natural justice and it is prayed to be deleted fully.” 9. At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee brought

Shree Khedut Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandli Ltd., Surat, Bardoli vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bardoli

ITA 209/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijyananda Pruseth

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

date of passing the order and hence, the whole assessment proceedings being carried out in pure violation of principle of natural justice (audi alteram partem), is without jurisdiction, bad in law, void ab initio, illegal, unjustified and hence, the assessment order is liable to be struck down

Shree Khedut Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandli Ltd., Bardoli vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bardoli

ITA 738/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijyananda Pruseth

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

date of passing the order and hence, the whole assessment proceedings being carried out in pure violation of principle of natural justice (audi alteram partem), is without jurisdiction, bad in law, void ab initio, illegal, unjustified and hence, the assessment order is liable to be struck down