“ex-parte assessment”

Assessment ProceduresSection 144Section 144871 judgments

ABHISHEKBHAI ASHOKBHAI PATEL,KADI vs. THE ITO, WARD 1, MEHSANA

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

ITA 1803/AHD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Deepak, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Ananya Kulshresth, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 69A

proper opportunity of being heard and provide details for making judicious assessment and therefore pray to restore the assessment by set aside ex-parte assessment order. 2. The Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred on law as well as on facts while confirming the addition of Rs. 12,27,065/- made

MD. BABAR ALI,MALDA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), MALDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3175/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

erring consultant and lack of technical knowledge) should apply to all five defaults, warranting a total deletion of the penalty 5. Ex-parte Assessment Context: The underlying assessment was also ex- parte and is currently under appeal; therefore, the consequential penalty for technical non-compliance should be reconsidered in light

MD. BABAR ALI,MALDA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), MALDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3174/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

MD. BABAR ALI,MALDA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), MALDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3173/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

ITO, LUDHIANA vs. ARUN GUPTA, LUDHIANA

ITA 112/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Krinwant Sahay, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.112/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Ito Arun Gupta बनाम/ Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar 1698 – New Shakti Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab - 141001 Ludhiana, Punjab - 141001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abkpg-4933-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. B.M. Monga & Sh. Rohit Kaura (Advocates) ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Manav Bansal (Cit) Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-01-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 19-03-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Krinwant Sahay () This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 04.12.2024, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2021-22. The Revenue Has Challenged The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Setting Aside The Assessment Order To The File Of The Assessing Officer For Fresh Adjudication.

For Appellant: Sh. B.M. Monga & Sh. Rohit Kaura (Advocates)For Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal (CIT) Ld. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144BSection 251Section 68Section 69C

under Section 143(2) and 142(1); however, the assessee failed to submit the required documents or explanations. Consequently, the AO passed an ex-parte assessment order under Section 144 read with Section 144B on 20.12.2022. In the said order, the AO made significant additions totaling

A K ENTERPRISES ,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 35(5), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6587/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 147rSection 148Section 234Section 234ASection 270A

Income Tax Act 1961 (in short “the Act”). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds in appeal: 1. That the ex-parte assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 & 144B of the Income Tax Act 1961 on 02-02-2024, wherein the illegal and impugned additions have been made ... such bearing no transaction if any in their current account no. 419001010050745 maintained with the Union Bank of India. 3. That the ex-parte assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 & 144B on 02-02-2024 further becomes non-est, because of the non-receipt /service of any notice

DEEPANSHU,. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 46(5), DELHI, .

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 4640/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 144

NFAC has failed to appreciate that assessing\nofficer did not allow proper opportunity to the assessee to\nproduce the evidence and made ex-parte assessment u/s 144 of\nthe Act, despite appearance during assessment by the assessee.\n4. The above grounds of appeal are independent of, and without\nprejudice ... selected for limited scrutiny regarding cash deposits. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs.1,83,68,052/- based on an ex-parte assessment as the assessee did not file submissions or evidence. The National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution.", "held

PONGIYANNAN THANGAVEL,TIRUCHENGODE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, ERODE, ERODE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2929/CHNY/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2026AY 2011-2012

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

deposits in the assessee's bank accounts, treating them as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, leading to an ex-parte assessment order. The assessee claimed these deposits were from his lorry plying business.", "held": "The Tribunal noted that both the AO and CIT(A) accepted

RAJENDER SINGH,KAITHAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAITHAL

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 1480/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1480/Chd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Rajender Singh, The Ito, Prop. M/S Manchanda Tyres, Vs Kaithal. 911/1, Professor Colony, Kaithal. "ायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Bbhps3209Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pulkit Saini, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2026

For Appellant: Shri Pulkit Saini, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148

cash aggregating to Rs.35,79,610/- in his Saving Bank Account No. 086105500104 maintained with ICICI Ltd., Kaithal. The AO, thereafter passed the ex-parte assessment order u/s 144 read with 147 of the Act and added sum of Rs.35,79,610/- to the total income of the assessee. A.Y.2012-13

JATINDER SINGH,YAMUNANAGAR, HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, YAMUNA NAGAR HARYANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 781/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 781/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Jatinder Singh, The Ito, House No. 8, Vidya Nagar, Vs Ward – 3, Govind Puri Road, Yamunanagar. Yamuna Nagar. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aezps1176G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri B.M. Monga & Shri Rohit Kaura, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2026

For Appellant: Shri B.M. Monga & Shri Rohit Kaura, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 148

Saving Bank account of the assessee, has issued a notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act. The AO, by way of ex-parte assessment order dated 22.12.2018 has made the addition of Rs.69,75,768/- which, according to the AO was deposited in the Saving Bank account with ICICI ... that this sale consideration has been deposited in the bank account and therefore, there is no unexplained cash credit. Since it was an ex-parte assessment order, therefore, these details were not before the AO but these were brought to the notice of ld.CIT (Appeals) who also did not take

PRAKASHBHAI KHENGARBHAI DODIYA,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE ITO WARD 1 SURENDRANAGAR, SURENDRANAGAR

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

ITA 790/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Samir Vora, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144Section 250

follows:\n“1.1 The order passed u/s.250 passed on 08.10.2025 for A.Y.2018-19 by NFAC.CIT(A), Delhi (for short 'CIT(A)'] confirming ex-parte assessment u/s 144 and huge addition of Rs.74,81,000/- towards unsecured borrowings from 15 parties as well as disallowance of interest expenses ... justice.\n2.1 The Ld.CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not adjudicating the ground of appeal relating to ex-parte assessment made u/s 144, though it was specifically raised before him at Sr. No. 1.2 to 1.4 of the GOA.\n2.3

HARSHARAN SINGH SETIA,IMPHAL vs. ITO W-2, IMPHAL

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

ITA 13/GTY/2026[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shriduvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Ito Ward-2 Harsharan Singh Setia, Income Tax Office, Road, Old Mannis, Thangal Bazar Imphal, Lambulane, Imphal, Vs. Mainour-794001 Manipur-795001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aibps5861J Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Dipak Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.03.2026

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dipak Singh, DR

that the assessee did not make compliance before the ld. AO as well as before the ld. CIT (A) resulting into passing an ex-parte assessment order as well as the ld. CIT (A) order. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that ends of justice would be well

POREDDY SAMBASIVA REDDY,KADIRI vs. ITO, WARD-1, HINDUPUR

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

ITA 1862/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1862/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2018-19) Poreddy Sambasiva Reddy, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Kadiri. Ward-1, Pan: Bibpr4972G Hindupur. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) करदाताका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri Nvv Gopalal Krishna, Ca Assessee Represented By राज"वका""त"न"ध"व/ : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.Ar Department Represented By सुनवाईसमा"तहोनेक""त"थ/ : 09/03/2026 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/ : 13/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Poreddy Sambasiva Reddy, Kadiri (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 22/10/2025 For The Assessment Year (“A.Y.” 2018-19. Poreddy Sambasiva Reddy Vs. Ito 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

case on merits and since the case of the assessee could not be properly adjudicated on merits before the lower authorities due to ex-parte assessment, the issue may be set aside to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication. Page 5 of 8 Poreddy Sambasiva Reddy

DANDEBOINA RAMESH,WARANGAL vs. ITO, WARD-(1), WARANGAL

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

ITA 1661/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Section 115Section 139Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 69A

filed a return for AY 2015-16, deposited Rs.51,62,000 in cash. Despite notices, the assessee did not comply, leading to an ex-parte assessment order. The AO added Rs.26,31,000 as unexplained cash credit under Section 69A, determining total income at Rs.28,38,420.", "held": "The Tribunal

AJIT SINGH,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 35(5), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 2691/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Section 147Section 148Section 250

file his\nsubmission after availing the various opportunity. The\nassessee did not appear before the lower authorities. The ld.\nAO framed the ex-parte assessment and Ld. NFAC also\ndismissed the appeal ex-parte. The appeal should have been\ndecided on merit as per the provision of the section

BHAGYA GOLD LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 351/AHD/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Who Has Given Five Opportunities Of Hearing, Which Was Not Responded By The Assessee, Which Has Resulted In Passing Ex-Parte Dismissal Order.

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 68

establish identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction, whereby made addition u/s.68 of the Act and demanded tax thereon. 3. Aggrieved by the ex-parte assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has given five opportunities of hearing, which was not responded

RAVIPATI RADHA BAI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 2022/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.2022/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Ravipati Radha Bai [[ The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad – 500 028. Ward-7(1), Vs. Telangana. Hyderabad – 500 084. Pan Aaihr4276B (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By : Sri H Srinivasulu, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Ms Reema Yadav, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 11.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Appellant: Sri H Srinivasulu, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS Reema Yadav, Sr. AR

Section 144Section 250

made an addition of Rs.12,29,000/- on account of cash deposit in the bank accounts during the demonetization period while passing the ex-parte assessment order dated 30.12.2019. Though the assessee has challenged the action of the Assessing Officer before the learned CIT(A) however, there was no appearance

SUMITRA DEVI,GURGAON vs. ITO,WARD 4(1),GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 2499/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. M.R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)

case under Section 147, issuing a notice under Section 148. The assessee did not file a return or comply, leading to an ex-parte assessment order. The assessee appealed, and the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 and other subsequent

MEHAL SINGH,JHALLIAN KHURD,RUPNAGAR vs. ITO WARD-2(2), ROPAR, ROPAR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 806/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: The Cit(A), All The Notices & The Impugned Order Were Communicated At The Old Email Address Of The Earlier Counsel & Not At The Updated Email Address Furnished In The Income-Tax Records. Consequently, The Assessee Remained Unaware Of The Dismissal Of The Appeal & Came To Know About It Only When Recovery Proceedings Were Initiated. Immediately Thereafter He Consulted His Counsel & Steps Were Taken To File The Present Appeal. It Has Further Been Submitted That The Assessee Is A Senior Citizen Suffering From Hypertension & Diabetes & Due To Medical Complications

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

quasi- judicial authority, the Ld. CIT(A) is expected to decide the controversy substantively, particularly where substantial additions have been made in an ex-parte assessment. Under the scheme of section 249, the assessee is required to deposit the taxes as prescribed and, in case of hardship, is required

MOHD IRFAN ANWAR QURESHI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT C C 5(3), MUMBAI

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

ITA 8725/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: 1. Reopening Without Valld Jurisdiction-Sections 147 & 148

Section 144Section 148ASection 159Section 69A

individual name & PAN No.of the Appellant insteadin the capacity of Legal heir of deceased assessee through section 159 is invalid in law. 3. Ex-Parte Assessment in Gross Violation of Natural Justice 3.1 The assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 has been passed without providing effective opportunity of hearing

Showing 1–20 of 871 · Page 1 of 44

...