Suraj Mall Mohta and Co. v. A. V. Viswanatha Sastry, (1954] 26 ITR 1 (SC)
The Supreme Court has ruled that assessment proceedings before the Income-tax Officer are judicial proceedings and all the incidents of such judicial proceedings have to be observed before the result is arrived at. The assessee has a right to inspect the record and all relevant documents before he is called upon to lead evidence in rebuttal. This right has not been taken away by any express provision of the Income-tax Act.
Dharkeswari Cotton Mills Ltd v CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) ,
Violation of principle of natural justice may lead to violation of Fundamental rights of equality guaranteed by Articles 14 or 21 of the Constitution of India
R.B Shreeram Durga Prasad & Fatechand Nursing Das v Settlement Commission ( 1969) 176 ITR 169 (SC)
Where the principle of natural justice violated , the Supreme Court set aside the assessment .
Kishanchand Chellaram v CIT ( 1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC)
Authorities cannot use the statement without giving an opportunity of cross examination
CIT v. Oriental Rubber works (1984) 145 ITR 477 (SC)
u/s 132(8 ), the revenue is under a statutory obligation to communicate to assessee-commissioner’s approval, as well as recorded reasons of authorised officer on which such approval is based, for retention of seized books, etc., for a period exceeding 180 days from date of seizure
C.B Gautam v UOI (1993) 199 ITR 530 (SC)
Violation of the principle of natural justice may lead to violation of Fundamental rights of equality guaranteed by Article 14 or 21 of the Constitution of India
Sona Builders v UOI ( 2001)251 ITR 197 (SC)
Only three days notice to respond the notice – Order of appropriate authority had to be quashed . Prayer for set aside the matter was not entertained
Sahara India (Firm) v CI ( 2008) 300 ITR 403 (SC)
Even in absence of an express provision for affording an opportunity of pre-decisional hearing to an assessee and in absence of any express provision in section 142(2A) barring giving of a reasonable opportunity to an assessee, requirement of observance of principles of natural justice is to be read into said provision
Andaman Timber Industries v CCE ( 2015) 127 DTR 241/ 281 CTR 241 (SC)
Order passed denying the opportunity of cross examination is violates principle of natural justice which is a serious flaw which renders the order a nullity .
H.R Mehata v.ACIT ( 2016) 387 ITR 561 (Bom) (HC )
Assessing Officer should have provided assessee material used against him apart from providing him an opportunity to cross examine deponents whose statements were relied upon [ S.68 )
CIT v Odeon Builders ( P ) Ltd ( 2019) 418 ITR 315 (SC)
Entire disallowance was based on third party information gathered by Investigation Wing of Department, which had not been independently subjected to further verification by Assessing Officer and he had not provided copy of such statements to appellant, thus, denying opportunity of cross examination to appellant .Addition was deleted .
Khem Chand v. UOI AIR 1958 SC 300
Reasonable opportunity must be given
A.K Kraipak and Ors v. UOI (1969) 2 SCC 262 (SC) dated April 29, 1969
Applicability of principles of natural justice to Administrative proceedings. The aim of the rules of natural justice is to secure justice or to prevent miscarriage of justice . A judge cannot judge his own case .
Navbkhan Abbas khan v. State of Gujarat 1974 AIR 1471 /1974 SCR (3) 427 (SC )
An order which infringed a fundamental freedom passed in violation of audi alteram partem rule was ‘nullity’.
State Of Kerala v. K.T. Shaduli Yusuff Etc 1977 AIR 1627 , 1977 SCR (3) 233 (dt 15 March, 1977)
Best judgement assessment relying on certain entries in account books of other dealers – Cross examination of dealers is part of principle of natural justice . Particularly when the assesee makes a specific prayer to this effect .
Maneka Gandhi v UOI 1978 AIR 597 (SC)/ 1978 SCR (2) 621 (SC)
Art 21 : Natural Justice . Opportunity to be heard is universally recognized as an essential ingredient of principle of natural justice .
Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. L.K Ratna and ors (1986) 4 SCC 537
The principle of natural justice must be read in to the unoccupied interstices of the statute unless there is clear mandate to the contrary . The member accused of misconduct is entitled to a haring by the council when on receipt of the report of the Disciplinary Committee , it proceeds to find whether he or is not guilty .
Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd v. Girija Shankar Pant & Ors (2001) 1 SCC 182
Show cause notice must specify the specific charge
Oryx fisheries v. UOI (2010) 13 SCC 427 (SC) dated October 29, 2010
Requirement of natural justice is that justice must not only be done but it must eminently appear to be done as well is equally applicable to quasi judicial proceedings if such a proceeding has to inspire confidence in the mind of those who are subjected to it
Kranti Associates Pvt Ltd v. Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors. (2010) 9 SCC 496 (SC) dated September 8, 2010.
In India the judicial Trend has always been to record reasons , even in administrative decisions if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially , must record reasons , insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency etc
Bharti Reddy v. State of Karnataka (2018) 6 SCC 162 (SC) dated March 6 2018
Where the order is passed by the jurisdictional authority without hearing the party affected , which entails injury to a constitutionally guaranteed right to the affected party . It held that such orders may be treated as void and ineffectual to bind the parties from the beginning .