← 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

Rnt Associates Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5221/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. Vishal ShahFor Respondent: 29/10/2025
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

particulars,” such a notice betrays non-application of mind and application of mind and violates the principles of violates the principles of audi alteram partem—the very cornerstone the very cornerstone of natural justice. The Hon’ble Court further observed that the two of natural justice. The Hon’ble Court

Kriteshwar Prasad Singh, Panvel vs. Asst/Dy CIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 268/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.268/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2022-23 Kriteshwar Prasad Singh The Asst./Dy.Cit बनाम/ F.No.07, Lilac Bldg Circle-2(1)(1) V/S. Godrej Sky Garden Vadodara – 390 007 Takka, Panvel – 410 206 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Ahlps 7784 H (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra C. Meha, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/10/2025 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 21/01/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-2023. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. 143 1 A The Ld Addl Jcit A Grossly Erred On Facts & In Law In Dismissing The Appeal Without Adjudicating The Preliminary Issue Raised Regarding The Violation Of Statutory Provision Of Sec 143 1 A Of The Income Tax Act 1961 The Act In The Form Of Kriteshwar Prasad Singh Vs. Asst/Dy Cit Asst. Year : 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra C. Meha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Sr.DR
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

days. The provision is couched in mandatory terms, and its object is to ensure adherence to the principles of natural justice, namely audi alteram partem—that no one should be condemned unheard. In this regard, the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by several decisions of various ... invalid in law, being in violation of the first proviso to section 143(1)(a) of the Act and the fundamental principle of audi alteram partem. Accordingly, the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act is quashed. Kriteshwar Prasad Singh vs. Asst/Dy CIT Asst. Year

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Ethirajulu Vajravel Kumaran, Tiruvannamalai

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1655/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkata Raman, CA
Section 1Section 132Section 139(1)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Ethirajulu Vajravel Kumaran, Thiruvannamalai

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1654/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkata Raman, CA
Section 1Section 132Section 139(1)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Ethirajulu Vajravel Kumaran, Thiruvannamalai

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1653/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkata Raman, CA
Section 1Section 132Section 139(1)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Ethirajulu Vajravel Kumaran, Tiruvannamalai

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1652/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkata Raman, CA
Section 1Section 132Section 139(1)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Ethirajulu Vajravel Kumaran, Tiruvannamalai

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1651/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkata Raman, CA
Section 1Section 132Section 139(1)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Ethirajulu Vajravel Kumaran, Chennai

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1650/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkata Raman, CA
Section 1Section 132Section 139(1)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

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

Ardent Steels Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 337/RPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 337/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"Assessment Year: 2020-21)

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

PCIT defeats the rules of natural justice of 30 Ardent Steels Private Limited vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 doctrine of Audi alteram partem. Relevant findings of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of the aforesaid case are as under: 15) Further, apart from the aforesaid observations, the order passed ... year, therefore, withholding certain documents which is used against the assessee by the PCIT defeats the rules of natural justice of doctrine of audi alteram partem. 19. In the aforesaid matter, during the hearing Ld. AR has also confronted with the case that the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-4, Surat vs. Bhartiben Bholabhai Radadiya, Surat

In the result, addition u/s 69A is set aside to the file of AO and addition of income from house property as business income is dismissed

ITA 980/SRT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.966/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 (Hybrid Hearing) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Mehul Vinubhai Radadiya बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, 101, Mangal Deep Apartment, Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Kapodara Road, Om Nagar, Parvat Surat-395 001 Patia, Surat-395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ajgpr 7928 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.970/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Ankit Bholabhai Radadiya बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, Plot No.07, Adarsh Society, Nr. Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Gokulam Diary, Athwalines, Surat- Surat-395 001 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aztpr 2029 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.971/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Parshottambhai Bachubhai बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, Radadiya Vs. Room No.508, Aaykar 41/42 Om Nagar Society, Nr Puna Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat- Octroi Naka Parvat Patiya, Surat- 395 001 395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acxpr 3605 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.973/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Rahulkumar Vinubhai बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat Radadiya Vs. Room No.508, Aaykar 45, Saifee Co-Op. Housing Society

Section 143(3)Section 250

given to rebut or explain the same. Reliance placed on such documents without giving opportunity to the assessee violates the principles of audi alteram partem, rendering the addition legally untenable. This position has been reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 4, Surat vs. Ankur Bholabhai Radadiya, Surat

In the result, addition u/s 69A is set aside to the file of AO and addition of income from house property as business income is dismissed

ITA 979/SRT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.966/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 (Hybrid Hearing) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Mehul Vinubhai Radadiya बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, 101, Mangal Deep Apartment, Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Kapodara Road, Om Nagar, Parvat Surat-395 001 Patia, Surat-395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ajgpr 7928 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.970/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Ankit Bholabhai Radadiya बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, Plot No.07, Adarsh Society, Nr. Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Gokulam Diary, Athwalines, Surat- Surat-395 001 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aztpr 2029 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.971/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Parshottambhai Bachubhai बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, Radadiya Vs. Room No.508, Aaykar 41/42 Om Nagar Society, Nr Puna Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat- Octroi Naka Parvat Patiya, Surat- 395 001 395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acxpr 3605 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.973/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Rahulkumar Vinubhai बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat Radadiya Vs. Room No.508, Aaykar 45, Saifee Co-Op. Housing Society

Section 143(3)Section 250

given to rebut or explain the same. Reliance placed on such documents without giving opportunity to the assessee violates the principles of audi alteram partem, rendering the addition legally untenable. This position has been reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 4, Surat vs. Kishorbhai Manubhai Radadiya, Surat

In the result, addition u/s 69A is set aside to the file of AO and addition of income from house property as business income is dismissed

ITA 978/SRT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.966/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 (Hybrid Hearing) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Mehul Vinubhai Radadiya बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, 101, Mangal Deep Apartment, Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Kapodara Road, Om Nagar, Parvat Surat-395 001 Patia, Surat-395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ajgpr 7928 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.970/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Ankit Bholabhai Radadiya बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, Plot No.07, Adarsh Society, Nr. Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Gokulam Diary, Athwalines, Surat- Surat-395 001 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aztpr 2029 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.971/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Parshottambhai Bachubhai बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, Radadiya Vs. Room No.508, Aaykar 41/42 Om Nagar Society, Nr Puna Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat- Octroi Naka Parvat Patiya, Surat- 395 001 395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acxpr 3605 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.973/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Rahulkumar Vinubhai बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat Radadiya Vs. Room No.508, Aaykar 45, Saifee Co-Op. Housing Society

Section 143(3)Section 250

given to rebut or explain the same. Reliance placed on such documents without giving opportunity to the assessee violates the principles of audi alteram partem, rendering the addition legally untenable. This position has been reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle -4, Surat vs. Chaturbhai Manubhai Radadiya, Surat

In the result, addition u/s 69A is set aside to the file of AO and addition of income from house property as business income is dismissed

ITA 977/SRT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.966/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 (Hybrid Hearing) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Mehul Vinubhai Radadiya बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, 101, Mangal Deep Apartment, Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Kapodara Road, Om Nagar, Parvat Surat-395 001 Patia, Surat-395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ajgpr 7928 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.970/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Ankit Bholabhai Radadiya बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, Plot No.07, Adarsh Society, Nr. Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Gokulam Diary, Athwalines, Surat- Surat-395 001 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aztpr 2029 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.971/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Parshottambhai Bachubhai बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, Radadiya Vs. Room No.508, Aaykar 41/42 Om Nagar Society, Nr Puna Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat- Octroi Naka Parvat Patiya, Surat- 395 001 395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acxpr 3605 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.973/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Rahulkumar Vinubhai बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat Radadiya Vs. Room No.508, Aaykar 45, Saifee Co-Op. Housing Society

Section 143(3)Section 250

given to rebut or explain the same. Reliance placed on such documents without giving opportunity to the assessee violates the principles of audi alteram partem, rendering the addition legally untenable. This position has been reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle, -4, Surat vs. Vipulkumar Manubhai Radadiya, Surat

In the result, addition u/s 69A is set aside to the file of AO and addition of income from house property as business income is dismissed

ITA 974/SRT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.966/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 (Hybrid Hearing) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Mehul Vinubhai Radadiya बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, 101, Mangal Deep Apartment, Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Kapodara Road, Om Nagar, Parvat Surat-395 001 Patia, Surat-395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ajgpr 7928 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.970/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Ankit Bholabhai Radadiya बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, Plot No.07, Adarsh Society, Nr. Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Gokulam Diary, Athwalines, Surat- Surat-395 001 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aztpr 2029 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.971/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Parshottambhai Bachubhai बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, Radadiya Vs. Room No.508, Aaykar 41/42 Om Nagar Society, Nr Puna Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat- Octroi Naka Parvat Patiya, Surat- 395 001 395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acxpr 3605 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.973/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Rahulkumar Vinubhai बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat Radadiya Vs. Room No.508, Aaykar 45, Saifee Co-Op. Housing Society

Section 143(3)Section 250

given to rebut or explain the same. Reliance placed on such documents without giving opportunity to the assessee violates the principles of audi alteram partem, rendering the addition legally untenable. This position has been reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Surat vs. Rahulkumar Vinubhai Radadiya, Surat

In the result, addition u/s 69A is set aside to the file of AO and addition of income from house property as business income is dismissed

ITA 973/SRT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.966/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 (Hybrid Hearing) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Mehul Vinubhai Radadiya बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, 101, Mangal Deep Apartment, Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Kapodara Road, Om Nagar, Parvat Surat-395 001 Patia, Surat-395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ajgpr 7928 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.970/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Ankit Bholabhai Radadiya बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, Plot No.07, Adarsh Society, Nr. Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Gokulam Diary, Athwalines, Surat- Surat-395 001 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aztpr 2029 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.971/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Parshottambhai Bachubhai बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, Radadiya Vs. Room No.508, Aaykar 41/42 Om Nagar Society, Nr Puna Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat- Octroi Naka Parvat Patiya, Surat- 395 001 395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acxpr 3605 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.973/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Rahulkumar Vinubhai बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat Radadiya Vs. Room No.508, Aaykar 45, Saifee Co-Op. Housing Society

Section 143(3)Section 250

given to rebut or explain the same. Reliance placed on such documents without giving opportunity to the assessee violates the principles of audi alteram partem, rendering the addition legally untenable. This position has been reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Surat vs. Parshottambhai Bachubhai Radadia, Surat

In the result, addition u/s 69A is set aside to the file of AO and addition of income from house property as business income is dismissed

ITA 971/SRT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.966/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 (Hybrid Hearing) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Mehul Vinubhai Radadiya बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, 101, Mangal Deep Apartment, Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Kapodara Road, Om Nagar, Parvat Surat-395 001 Patia, Surat-395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ajgpr 7928 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.970/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Ankit Bholabhai Radadiya बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, Plot No.07, Adarsh Society, Nr. Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Gokulam Diary, Athwalines, Surat- Surat-395 001 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aztpr 2029 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.971/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Parshottambhai Bachubhai बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, Radadiya Vs. Room No.508, Aaykar 41/42 Om Nagar Society, Nr Puna Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat- Octroi Naka Parvat Patiya, Surat- 395 001 395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acxpr 3605 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.973/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Rahulkumar Vinubhai बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat Radadiya Vs. Room No.508, Aaykar 45, Saifee Co-Op. Housing Society

Section 143(3)Section 250

given to rebut or explain the same. Reliance placed on such documents without giving opportunity to the assessee violates the principles of audi alteram partem, rendering the addition legally untenable. This position has been reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Surat vs. Ankit Bholabhai Radadiya, Surat

In the result, addition u/s 69A is set aside to the file of AO and addition of income from house property as business income is dismissed

ITA 970/SRT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.966/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 (Hybrid Hearing) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Mehul Vinubhai Radadiya बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, 101, Mangal Deep Apartment, Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Kapodara Road, Om Nagar, Parvat Surat-395 001 Patia, Surat-395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ajgpr 7928 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.970/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Ankit Bholabhai Radadiya बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, Plot No.07, Adarsh Society, Nr. Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Gokulam Diary, Athwalines, Surat- Surat-395 001 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aztpr 2029 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.971/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Parshottambhai Bachubhai बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, Radadiya Vs. Room No.508, Aaykar 41/42 Om Nagar Society, Nr Puna Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat- Octroi Naka Parvat Patiya, Surat- 395 001 395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acxpr 3605 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.973/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Rahulkumar Vinubhai बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat Radadiya Vs. Room No.508, Aaykar 45, Saifee Co-Op. Housing Society

Section 143(3)Section 250

given to rebut or explain the same. Reliance placed on such documents without giving opportunity to the assessee violates the principles of audi alteram partem, rendering the addition legally untenable. This position has been reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries

Ravi Meemrot, Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Surat vs. Mehul Vinubhai Radadiya, Surat

In the result, addition u/s 69A is set aside to the file of AO and addition of income from house property as business income is dismissed

ITA 966/SRT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.966/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 (Hybrid Hearing) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Mehul Vinubhai Radadiya बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, 101, Mangal Deep Apartment, Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Kapodara Road, Om Nagar, Parvat Surat-395 001 Patia, Surat-395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ajgpr 7928 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.970/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Ankit Bholabhai Radadiya बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, Plot No.07, Adarsh Society, Nr. Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Gokulam Diary, Athwalines, Surat- Surat-395 001 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aztpr 2029 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.971/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Parshottambhai Bachubhai बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, Radadiya Vs. Room No.508, Aaykar 41/42 Om Nagar Society, Nr Puna Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat- Octroi Naka Parvat Patiya, Surat- 395 001 395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acxpr 3605 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.973/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Rahulkumar Vinubhai बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat Radadiya Vs. Room No.508, Aaykar 45, Saifee Co-Op. Housing Society

Section 143(3)Section 250

given to rebut or explain the same. Reliance placed on such documents without giving opportunity to the assessee violates the principles of audi alteram partem, rendering the addition legally untenable. This position has been reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries

Pramod Ramabhai Tandel, Daman vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Vapi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms indicated above

ITA 580/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.580/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Pramod Ramabhai Tandel Assistant Commissioner Of Income- बनाम/ O Kusum Niwas, Sarvodaya Tax, Central Circle-1, 7Th, 8Th & 9Th Vs. Society, Tin Batti, Nani Floor, Fortune Square, Vapi-396 210 Daman, Daman-396 210 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aarpt 2989 E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

written submissions or personal appearance from the assessee. It is a settled position of law that no person should be condemned unheard (audi alteram partem). Adjudication without adequate opportunity violates the principles of natural justice and such orders cannot be sustained. 7.1 We find merit in the contention

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana vs. Aman Feed Industries, Khanna

In the result, appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 457/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 1252, 1253,1254,1255/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19,2019-20 M/S Aman Feed Industries, The Dcit, E-2, Focal Point, Vs Central Circle-1, Khanna. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aacfa3624L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 116,181,457/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 The Dcit, Vs M/S Aman Feed Industries, Central Circle-1, E-2, Focal Point, Ludhiana. Khanna. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aacfa3624L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Shri Kulbhushan Goyal & Ms, Deepali Aggarwal, Cas Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, Shri Kulbhushan Goyal &For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 68

wide umbrella. Accordingly, we reject the argument and hold that since an order under section 142 (2A) does entail civil consequences, the rule audi alteram partem is required to be observed." 19. To the same effect, are the decisions of the Delhi High Court in Yum! Restaurants Asia