“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

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

Mohd.Irfan Anwar Qureshi, Mumbai vs. DCIT C C 5(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 8724/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

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

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

Section 144Section 148ASection 159Section 69A

Mohd.Irfan Anwar Qureshi, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 8723/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

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

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

Section 144Section 148ASection 159Section 69A

Parnal Nishant Mehar, Maharashtra vs. AO Ward 42(3)(1), Mumbai, Kautilya Bhawan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 8264/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Chetan JaiswalFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “C” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP

Panchagram Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., Dakshin Dinajpur vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(4), Balurghat

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

ITA 3019/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Mar 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sandip Sarkar, DR

passed the appellant order ex-parte when the assessee failed to respond to various notices issued during appellate proceedings. Similarly, the AO passed ex-parte assessment when the assessee did not respond to the notices issued during assessment proceedings. Therefore, the End of justice will be well-served

Ampi Finance Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-4(3), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2831/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: the Bench that the re-opening of

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 69C

filed return of income on 28.09.2012 declaring total income at Rs. ‘Nil’. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and ex-parte assessment u/s 144 of the Act was passed vide order dated 19.03.2015 assessing income at Rs. 26,17,220/-. Thereafter, the assessment was reopened after

Sangamam Power Projects Private Limited, Bhopal vs. DCIT/ACIT 5(1), Bhopal

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes,

ITA 929/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

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

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 250(6)

Thus, according to Ld. AR, although the AO passed assessment-order u/s 143(3) but the same is substantially in the nature of ex-parte assessment for lack of evidences. 4. Thereafter, Ld. AR drew us to Para 2 of assessment-order of AY 2017- 18 to demonstrate that there

Sangamam Power Projects Private Limited, Bhopal vs. DCIT/ACIT 5(1), Bhopal

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes,

ITA 928/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

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

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 250(6)

Raj Kumar Parmar, Sehore vs. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, Sehore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose, subject

ITA 406/IND/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

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

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI

Pragnaben Umeshbhai Yagnik, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2529/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2529/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Pragnaben Umeshbhai Yagnik The Ito बनाम/ 118, Saket Raw House Ward-1(2)91) V/S. B/H. Memnagar Gram Ahmedabad – 380 015 Panchayat Memnagar S.O. Ahmedabad – 380 025 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aahpy 1844 P (अपीलाथ)/ Appellant) (*+ यथ)/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rameshwar P. Meena, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: 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 28/06/2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Assessee, In This Appeal, Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Lower Authorities In Making/Confirming The Addition Of Rs.1,00,01,000/- On Account Non-Deposit Of Tax Of Short Term Capital Gain (Stcg) Earned By The Assessee. Pragnaben Umeshbhai Yagnik Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2015-16 2

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P. Meena, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 250

address of the assessee, which did not come to the notice of the assessee resulting into passing of the ex-parte assessment order and also delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee has a fair case on merits

Naushad Ali Abdul Haq Shaik, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 42(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 7339/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Akshay JainFor Respondent: Mr. Swapnil Choudhari, Sr. DR

Section 245

that the assessee became aware of the ex that the assessee became aware of the ex that the assessee became aware of the ex-parte assessment and penalty orders. Furthermore, the assessee’s assessment and penalty orders. Furthermore, the assessee’s assessment and penalty orders. Furthermore, the assessee’s Naushad

Naushad Ali Abdul Haq Shaikh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 42(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 7338/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Akshay JainFor Respondent: Mr. Swapnil Choudhari, Sr. DR

Section 245

Nitesh Agarwal, Agra vs. Income Tax Officer-2(1)(3), Agra

ITA 501/AGR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra20 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Accoutant Member Nitesh Agarwal Vs Income Tax 29/81, Lakshmi Palace, Officer-2(1) (3), Namakkimandi, Agra- Agra 282003 Pan No Abnpa2197G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 178Section 234ASection 234BSection 250(6)

issued under section 148 of the ‘Act’. BECAUSE, No Notice under section 178 of the ‘Act’ was served upon the ‘appellant’ and ex-parte assessment was completed without serving any Notice under section 148 of the ‘Act’ render the Assessment Order void-ab-initio. BECAUSE, the purported ‘Reasons’ as reproduced

Income Tax Officer, Ludhiana vs. Kp Exim Inc, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 561/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 561/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Ito, K.P.Exim Inc, Ward 3(1), Vs Main Bahadur K.Road, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana. Khaira,Lodhowal B.O., Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aakfk2926M अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Y.K. Saxena, Advocate & Shri Amandeep Saxena, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Y.K. Saxena, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

ex-parte order dated 26.03.2022 made an addition of Rs.2,90,07,882/- u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act. This ex-parte assessment order was set aside by the ld.CIT (Appeals) on 11.11.2022 u/s 251(1) 1st Proviso. The ld. AO has passed the fresh assessment order

Rekha Khandelwal, Rajgarh vs. ITO Ward Rajgarh, Rajgarh

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 649/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2014-15 Rekha Khandelwal, Income-Tax Officer, Ward No.2, Near Chote Ward Rajgarh Hanuman Mandir, बनाम/ Rajgarh Bus Stand Vs. S.O. Rajgarh, (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Eljpk1548B Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 253(5)Section 68

return. The AO also issued notices u/s 142(1) and show-cause notice, which again remained uncompiled by assessee. Ultimately, the AO passed ex-parte assessment- order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act assessing total income at Rs. 75,58,232/- consisting of two components, viz. (i) unexplained cash

Rajesh Kumar Rathore, Sehore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Sehore

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 534/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2018-19 Rajesh Kumar Rathore, Ito, Ward-5 Collectors Bungalow, Sehore Sindhi Colony, Vs. Sehore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aappr2617B Assessee By Shri Harshit Choukse & Shri Kunal Agrawal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69

followed by letter/show- cause notice to assessee but finding non-compliances from assessee, the AO completed assessment ex-parte assessment u/s 144 vide assessment-order dated 06.03.2023 treating the deposits in bank a/c as unexplained investment u/s 69 and thereby determining total income

Rajesh Gourishankar, Dewas vs. Officer, Dewas

ITA 377/IND/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

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

Section 144Section 253(5)

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

M/S Ras Devcon Private Limited, Sanvid Nagar, Kanadia Road, Indore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Indore, Aaykar Bhawan, Opposite White Church Road

ITA 171/IND/2025[2014- 2015]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 68

dismissed the Appeal and sustained the impugned addition of Rs 82,00,000/- against the Appellant. 11. That being aggrieved by the impugned ex-parte assessment order and impugned addition the Assessee prefers present Appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal, on the following GROUNDS as under” 3. Record of Hearing

Income Tax Officer, Kakinada vs. Andhra Pradesh United Teachers Federation, Kakinada

ITA 609/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 251(1)(a)Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM “DIVISION BENCH”, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री रिीश सूद ,न्याधयक

Kamleshkumar Dhansukhlal Patel, Valsad vs. ITO, Ward 2, Valsad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 890/SRT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69

notices u/s 143(2), 142(1) and the show-cause notice issued u/s 144 of the Act, the Assessing Officer completed an ex-parte assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.67,25,171/-, making an addition of Rs.66