“ex-parte assessment”

Assessment ProceduresSection 144Section 144871 judgments

The decision most relied on for ex-parte assessment is Vijay Shrinivasrao Kulkarni v. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (171 Taxmann.com 696), cited in 200 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on ex-parte assessment

Vijay Shrinivasrao Kulkarni v. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal

171 Taxmann.com 696 · 2025 · High Court

200

citing judgments

The ITAT fails to uphold natural justice when it doesn't address an infirmity regarding an assessee being denied a proper opportunity of being heard before the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC dismissed the matter ex-parte.

Velu Palandar v. DCIT

83 ITR 683 · 1972 · High Court

citing judgments

The opportunity of hearing provided to an assessee must be real, effective, and realistic, not merely notional, and tax authorities are incumbent to decide cases on their merits after affording due opportunity.

Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship v. CIT (Exemptions)

463 ITR 560 · 2024 · High Court

citing judgments

Service of notice through the ITBA portal is not a valid method of service under section 282(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and Rule 127(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Consequently, matters where notice was deemed invalidly served via ITBA portal are remanded to the Assessing Officer for a de novo disposal to uphold principles of natural justice.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. BIJU PATNAIK HIGH COURT OF ORISSA

190 ITR 396 · 1991 · High Court

citing judgments

An ex-parte statement recorded under section 131 cannot be used against an assessee without giving them an opportunity to present rebuttal evidence, as doing so violates the principles of natural justice and vitiates the assessment order.

Ashokji Chanduji Thakor v. Pr.CIT

130 Taxmann.com 131 · 2021 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

If an assessee is non-cooperative throughout the assessment and appellate proceedings, despite multiple opportunities, the authorities are justified in deciding the proceedings ex-parte based on the available material.

PCIT v. Drisha Impex (P.) Ltd.

173 Taxmann.com 571 · 2025 · High Court

citing judgments

A High Court decision upholding additions made by the Assessing Officer for non-genuine purchases is affirmed when an SLP against it is dismissed by the Supreme Court. The Assessing Officer's addition for alleged bogus purchases is justified and can be sustained.

Shivangi Steel (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income

42 Taxmann.com 393 · 2014 · ITAT

citing judgments

The Commissioner (Appeals) can pass an ex-parte assessment order under Section 251 read with Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, if the assessee fails to attend assessment proceedings or produce documents despite multiple notices and adjournments.

Ramesh K. Shah v. DCIT

82 TTJ 827 · ITAT

citing judgments

The Assessing Officer (AO) cannot rely solely on ex-parte details or data without cross-examination, especially when affidavits confirm no cash transactions.

Judgments citing ex-parte assessment

Mohammed Gouse Moinuddin, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 900/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Sri R. Mohan KumarFor Respondent: Sri Madan Mohan Meena,Sr. AR

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 69A

bank accounts during the financial year 2013-2014 relevant to assessment year 2014-2015. We find that, the Assessing Officer almost passed ex-parte assessment order and before the learned CIT(A) also the assessee could not substantiate his case. We find that, the assessee is having credits

Jitendra Kumar, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Jaipur

In the result, the quantum appeal (ITA No

ITA 1108/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary,JCIT-DR

Section 144Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. In this case, it is noticed that the AO passed an ex-parte assessment order u/s 144 of the Act by holding as under:- ‘’2. In response to the notice u/s 143(2), none attended nor any reply

Jitendra Kumar, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Jaipur

In the result, the quantum appeal (ITA No

ITA 1107/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary,JCIT-DR

Section 144Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Tulja Singh Madabaloo, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-7(2), Hyderabad

ITA 508/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us :

Section 144Section 68

dated 29.11.2019 for the A.Y.2017-18. 2. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds before us : (i) The ex-parte assessment order dt.29.11.2019 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2), Hyderabad, for the assessment year 2017-18 is quite contrary to law, against weight ... could not represent before the Income Tax Officer, as the Chartered Accountant, Mr.N.Laxminarayana was not well and was advised complete bed, resulted into ex-parte assessment order. Further the appeal filed could not be represented before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as the Chartered Accountant, Mr.N.Laxminarayana expired and could

Kiran Reddy Visireddy, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-12(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1131/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, C Maheshwar ReddyFor Respondent: MS U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 69A

appeal before the Tribunal. 5. CA, C. Maheshwar Reddy, Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the Assessing Officer has passed the ex-parte assessment order without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. During the course of appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A), the assessee has furnished ... parties, perused the material on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that, the Assessing Officer has passed ex-parte assessment order and made addition of Rs.22,75,34,112/- as unexplained money u/sec.69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 towards cash deposits and other

Potu Janardhan Rao, Warangal vs. ITO., Ward-1, Warangal

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 1072/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Us: 2. Succinctly Stated, The Ao, Based On Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits Of Rs. 1.08 Crores In His Current Account With Andhra Bank (Now Union Bank Of India) & Made Withdrawals Of Rs. 93.24 Lacs From The Said Bank Account, Initiated Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act.

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 251(1)(a)Section 69A

r.w.s. 144 r.w.s.144B of the Act dated 21.12.2023, therefore, the CIT(A), despite being vested with the powers to set aside an ex-parte assessment to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication, vide the newly inserted “Proviso” to section

Akhilesh Singh Bhadauria, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-58(2), Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2349/DEL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2010-11 Akhilesh Singh Bhadauria, Vs Ito, A-19, Ground Floor, Ward-58(2), Ghazipur Village, Delhi. Delhi – 110 096 Pan: Altpb9329H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Amit Kumar Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 282Section 69A

reflecting on the income tax portal. 2 4) The lid. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the ex-parte assessment order passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 which is based in mechanical approvals from PCII, Delhi-20. 5) The Id. CIT(A) erred

Jayanth Gaddipati, Guntur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

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

ITA 309/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.309/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Jayanth Gaddipati, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Guntur. Ward-2(1), Pan: Bbmpg1369Q Guntur. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri I. Kama Sastry, Ca ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 12/08/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 04/09/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 69C

assessee on various dates. However, there was no response from the assessee and therefore, the Ld.AO proceeded to pass the ex-parte assessment U/s. 144 of the Act and the same was informed to the assessee by issuance of show cause notice dated 08/03/2022 along with the draft assessment order

Balamourougan, Puducherry vs. ITO, Ward-3, Puducherry

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

ITA 1814/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1814/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2011-12 Balamourougan, Income Tax Officer, No.14, 2Nd Cross, Navasakthi Nagar, Ward-3, Puducherry-605 009. Puducherry. [Pan: Agrpb3165E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.Hitesh, Advocate For Mr.D.Anand, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Veeramany K, Irs सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.Hitesh, Advocate for Mr.D.AnandFor Respondent: Shri Veeramany K, IRS

Section 144Section 147

outset the Ld. Counsel for the assessee informed that the Ld. First Appellate Authority has passed an ex-parte order thereby confirming the ex-parte assessment order u/s 144 dated 28.11.2018 and that the appeal was dismissed for being filed late without any justified grounds. It was pleaded that ... delay in filing of first appeal and for which it had justified grounds. The assessee pleaded that it was not aware of the ex-parte assessment order of the Page - 2 - of 5 ITA No.1814 /Chny/2025 Ld.AO and learnt of the same when its refund was adjusted against outstanding demand

Manu Chaudhary, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 6(1), Jaipur

ITA 768/JPR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA No. 768/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2009-10 Shri Manu Chaudhary 7-CHA-11, Jawahar Nagar Jaipur - 302 017 बनाम ITO Vs. Ward 6(1) Jaipur } प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ADIPC 0353 R अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Dheeraj Borad, CA राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

./JCIT(A) failed to provide a specific opportunity to the appellant for explaining the reasons of delay in filing the appeal against the ex-parte assessment order. 2. That as per the concept of natural justice the Id. Addl./JCIT(A) should have specifically asked the assessee to explain ... APPEAL NO. 02 to 05 This ground of appeal is against non-condonation of delay in filing the appeal and simultaneously sustaining the ex-parte assessment order passed by the AO on the income of Rs 8.00,000, though in Para 64 of the impugned order the Id. Addl./JCIT

Mahinder Pal, Mandi vs. Income Tax Officer, Mandi

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

ITA 916/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 916/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mahinder Pal, The Ito, Mahinder Fruit Company, Vs Mandi. Chail Chowk, Mandi. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Avgpp5393J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate With Ms. Isha Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Isha Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR

Section 144Section 147Section 69A

assessment. The assessment has been framed u/s 147 read with Section 144 of the Act on 18.01.2023. In other words, it is an ex-parte assessment according to the best judgement of the AO. 4. Dissatisfied with the assessment order, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

Late Satishkumar Bhagatram Chadha Through L/H Mayur Satishkumar Chadha, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 6(3), Pune

In the result, Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1327/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 144Section 250Section 69A

scrutiny accordingly the Assessing Officer issued various notices. The Assessee failed to file reply during assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer passed an ex-parte Assessment order u/s 144 of the income Tax Act making an addition of Rs.16,13,000/- u/s. 69A of the Act. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Kolhapur vs. Ajara Merchants Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd., Ajara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1693/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1138 & 1693/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Ito, Ward-1(1), Kolhapur. Vs. Ajara Merchants Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd., Main Branch, Nalawade Building, Main Road, Ajara, Kolhapur- 416505. Pan : Aadca1779J Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde : Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 23.03.2024 & 13.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. First We Shall Take Up The Quantum Appeal I.E Ita No.1138/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. Shingte

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271FSection 69

that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC erred in accepting the contention of the assessee that principles of natural justice has been violated in passing ex-parte assessment order. 8. Ld. DR further submitted that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC erred in accepting documents submitted by the assessee in contravention of Rule

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Kolhapur vs. Ajara Merchants Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd., Ajara, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1138/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. Shingte

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271FSection 69

Baijunda Electronics Pvt Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1)(1), Noida

In the result, the Appeal of the Appellant is partly allowed for

ITA 997/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrabaijunda Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit B-5, Sector 065 Circle 5(1)(1) Gautam Buddha Nagar G. B. Nagar Noida-201301 Noida Pan: Aahcb053Ih

Section 144Section 144B

Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. CIT(A)’/’NFAC’ for short), dated 25/01/2025for the Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. An ex-parte assessment order came to be passed on 18/12/2022 u/s 144 r. w. Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by making certain

Pankaj Gupta, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward-2(1), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1375/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 156

declaring the housing loan interest in the ITR then how it can be treated as ‘escaped assessment. 9. That impugned notices and ex-parte assessment was done during Covid-19 period from 15-03-2020 to 29-05-2022 (28-02-2022 + 90 days) as per Hon'ble Supreme Court ... condone delay) and termination of proceedings. 10. That during the Covid-19 period assessee was not aware about all these impugned notices / ex-parte assessment. Assessee came to know about impugned notices and ex-parte assessment through 'CA' when he approached to his 'CA' for filing the ITR of FY21

Vaidyanathan Rajesh, Kochi vs. Assistant Commissioner, Kochi

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

ITA 450/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan R, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 69

submitted that for the notices issued by the AO, the authorised representative had not properly responded and therefore the AO had made the ex-parte assessment. The Ld.CIT(A) without considering the said facts and the documents, had dismissed the appeal by saying that the explanation and the material submitted

Ayush Abhay Jain, Khandwa vs. Ward 1 Khandwa, Khandwa

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 641/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi**

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 144Section 68

## आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण**,** इंदौर Ɋायपीठ**,** इंदौर **IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE** ## **BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

Kp Agencies Printing Department, Sivakasi vs. ITO, Ncc-2, Madurai

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

ITA 1812/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1812/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: - 2017-18 K.P. Agencies Printing Department, Income Tax Officer, No.203A, Gnanagiri Road, Non-Corp Circle-2, Sivakasi, Madurai. Tamil Nadu-626 189. [Pan: Aabfk8736C] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant)

For Respondent: Mr.Veeramany K, IRS

Section 144

Sunita Sandeep Desai, Na vs. Arivs.the Income Tax Officer Ward-5, Navsari

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

ITA 1285/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1285/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Sunita Sandeep Desai, Vs. Ito, 212, Shrushti Complex, Opp – Ward – 5, Convent High School, Gandevi Navsari Road Lunsikui, Navsari - 396445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Afvpd1309P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Chetan Agrawal, Ar Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/08/2025

Section 147Section 148Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250

appeal ex-parte. 3. Learned CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in upholding additions made by Ld. AO in ex-parte assessment order. 4. Learned CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in upholding additions without considering submissions and evidence filed