“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

Ramchandra Dagdu Nikam, Satara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Satara

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

ITA 2552/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A ShahFor Respondent: Shri Vishal Makawane

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250

parties and perused the material available on records. The facts of the case are not in dispute. It is a case of an ex-parte assessment made by the Ld. AO u/s 144 of the Act due to non-compliance of notice(s) issued by him. From perusal

Surya Narayan Singh, Samastipur vs. Income Tax Officer-4(5), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 36/RPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.36/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 Surya Narayan Singh Village: Bandiha, P.O. Raniparti, P.S. Rosera, Dist. Samastipur-848117 Pan: Cfkps2988N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(5), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 127Section 147Section 148Section 251

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH

Vaiyapuri Parthipen, Namakkal vs. ITO Ward 1, Namakkal

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

ITA 756/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.756/Chny/2025 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vaiyapuri Parthipan, The Income Tax Officer, H1-41C, 5.462/2, Tnhb Colony, Vs. Ward-1, Mullai Nagar, Moganur Road, Namakkal. Namakkal – 637 001. [Pan: Alvpp 3229Q]

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate

Section 144Section 148

sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. Hence, the delay is hereby condoned. 3. The A.O, in the ex-parte assessment order passed u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act, has made addition of Rs. 1,54,32,920/- on account of cash deposits

Shri Khambhat Taluka Sarvajanik Kelavani Mandal, Anand vs. The ITO, Ward-Exemption, Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 598/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

lapse/negligence on the part of the accountant. It is acknowledged by the assessee that due to gross negligence of the accountant, ex-parte assessment order was passed by the AO and the first appeal was also dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) due to non-compliance before

Bharatkar Krishi Sakh Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Jabalpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(5), Jabalpur

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

ITA 53/JAB/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur11 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Brahtakar Krishi Sakh Ito Ward-2(5) V. Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Annexe Building Aayakar 01, Barela Jabalpur-482001. Bhawan, Napier Town, Jabalpur-482001. Pan:Aabab4581D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sapan Usrethe, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. CIT(DR)

Section 271FSection 80P

assessee society and in the absence Page 3 of 4 of relevant material the authorities below is justified in making the ex-parte assessment and sustaining the same. He further contended that the assessee ought to have been vigilant about his case. 5. We have heard rival contention and perused

Harsh Vidyarthi, Bhopal vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

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

ITA 326/CHNY/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.326/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2015-16 Harsh Vidyarthi, Assistant Commissioner Of Flat No.3A Rosemere Third Floor, Income Tax, No.18 Harrington Road, Chetpet, Central Circle-2(3), Chennai-600 031. Chennai. [Pan: Abwpv4268J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Deepak Arora, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Arora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 148

challenged the action of the AO and the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.AO had initiated action u/s 148 and had proceeded to complete an ex-parte assessment making total addition of Rs.1,16,05,829/- on different issues. It has been recorded by the Ld.AO that the assessee did not file

Chanchalben Dahyabhai Patel, Daman vs. Income Tax Officer, Daman

ITA 1038/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1035-1038/Srt/2024 (Ays: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Chanchalben Dahyabhai Patel 40, A.Dabhel Ghelwad Faila, Nani, Daman-396 210 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Daman, Jeevanji Hotel Building, Kathiria, Devka Road, Nani Daman-396 210 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aljpp 3816 D (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Chandra Jha, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 26/03/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement | 09/06/2025 आदेश / Order Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: These Four Appeals By The Assessee Emanate From Separate Orders Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, 'The Act') By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short, “Nfac/Cit(E)”] All Dated 13.08.2024, For The Assessment Years (Ay) 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16, Which In Turn Arose Out Of Assessment Orders Passed By Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao') U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S.144B Of The Act On 26.12.2018, 25.03.2022 & 28.03.2022 Respectively. In All The Appeals, The Facts Are Common & Grounds Of Appeals Raised By The Assessee Are Similar Except Variance Of Amounts. Hence, With The Consent Of The Parties, All The Appeals Were Clubbed & Heard Together & Are Decided By This Consolidated Order For Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

Section 147Section 250

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Alok Rai, Allahbad vs. Income Tax Officer NFAC Delhi, Allahabad

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

ITA 48/ALLD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad05 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 115BSection 144Section 144ASection 147Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

learned CIT(A) deserved to be condoned. It is also submitted vide statement of facts that the Assessing Officer had passed ex-parte assessment order without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, it is contended that the issue in dispute regarding additions made in the assessment order

Rekha Shah, Mumbai vs. AO, Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai

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

ITA 2311/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeerekha Shah Vs National Faceless Appeal Centre D-614, Veena Santoor, Sector- (Nfac) / Ito-Ward-34(3)(2), 8, Opp. Kvsc, Sai Baba Nagar Mumbai Extension Road, Borivali (W), Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Banda, Mumbai-400 092 Mumbai-400 051 Pan: Abgps4732G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri (SR DR)

Section 144Section 147Section 250

system regarding purchase of property and time deposits, resulting in an assessed income of Rs.51,62,311/-.The Ld. AO passed an ex-parte assessment order dated 29.11.2018 under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Act, makingadditions of Rs. 51,62,311/- on account of alleged undisclosed investments

Mita Chatterjee, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, New Delhi

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

ITA 5985/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

Shri Vakeel Singh S/O.Sh.Chhota Singh, Mansa vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), Mansa

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

ITA 634/ASR/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Sh. J. K. Gupta, Adv

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 249(3)Section 250

joined job in Delhi NCR. He did not intimate 3 I.T.A. No. 634/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2022-23 the assessee about assessment proceedings. So, ex-parte assessment order was passed. So, no reasonable opportunity given to assessee to explain the case. 6. That any other relief may kindly be granted

Dilipchand Sobhagchand Chopda, Latur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Latur

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

ITA 255/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Shubham N. Rathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 250Section 69A

regular basis. Thereafter, when the staff of the Chartered Accountant checked the said email account, the assessee came to know about the ex-parte assessment order already passed by the Ld. AO causing delay of 119 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). He submitted that

Krishan Pal Singh, Bareilly vs. ITO-1(1), Bareilly-New

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

ITA 612/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144Section 144ASection 147Section 249(2)Section 249(3)

learned CIT(A) deserved to be condoned. He also I.T.A. No.612/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2018-19 3 submitted that the Assessing Officer had passed ex-parte assessment order without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, he contended that the issue in dispute regarding addition made in the assessment order

Gajendra Nath Srivastav Through L/H Vipin Devi Srivastav, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 313/JPR/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh,JCIT-DR

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 153(3)Section 251Section 69ASection 80C

considered view that the assessment made by the AD u/s 147 r.w.s 144 read with section 1448 of the Act, being ex-parte assessment made without affording adequate opportunity to the Appellant, is fit to be set aside and referred back to the AO for making a fresh assessment

Ponkh Gram Seva Sahakari Samiti Limited, Ponkh Udaipurwati Jhunjhunu Rajasthanajasthan vs. ITO Ward-1, Jhunjhunu

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

ITA 392/JPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR &

Section 144

passing the impugned ex-parte order 2 PONKH GRAM SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI LTD VS ITO, WARD-1, JHUNJHUNU and in upholding the relevant ex-parte assessment order dated 29-02-2024. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining

Lova Impex Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

In the result, ITA.Nos.247/Hyd

ITA 252/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA C SureshFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 147Section 148A

noticed by the appellant company. The Department has reopened the assessment and since the appellant company has not responded to the notice, an ex-parte assessment order was passed for both the assessment years and made additions towards transactions reported by the DGFT. Further, the appellant company was not having