← All Phrases

“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
94
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
75
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
23
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
22
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
22
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
14
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
12
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

Roshan Lal, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhiwadi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 50/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur.

For Appellant: Sh. Prateek BasotiaFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 69A

continued lack of awareness regarding the assessment proceedings, the Appellant was unable to respond. Consequently, the Learned Assessing Officer proceeded with an ex-parte assessment under Section 144, without considering the Appellant’s genuine position or affording him a reasonable opportunity to explain the source of his funds ... linked to the sale of rural agricultural land, a transaction explicitly exempt from taxation under the Act. 13. As a consequence of the ex-parte assessment, an unwarranted tax demand of ₹52,59,180/- was raised against the Appellant. Furthermore, penalty 12 Roshal Lal vs. ITO proceedings under Sections

S R Automobiles, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-3(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 1269/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sisodia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT a
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

appear or filed any reply to the notices which were issued by the ld. AO during the assessment proceedings, finally the assessee completed ex-parte assessment. However, the Bench feels that the assessee because of any reasons could not advance his arguments/submissions to contest the case before the lower authorities

Smita Manoj Patane, Kolhapur vs. ITO 2(1) Kolhapur, Kolhapur

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

ITA 711/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.437/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Manoj Diwakar Patane, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), 339/21/22/23, Vasant Kolhapur. Sahawas, Wing F-3, Shahupuri, Karveer- 416003. Pan : Aippp3853K Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.711/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Samita Manoj Patane, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Shop No.1 653/A, Kusum Kolhapur. Apartment, 2Nd Lane, Shahupuri- 416001. Pan : Amypp8375M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 10.02.2025 : Date Of Pronouncement 05.05.2025 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: These Appeals Filed By Two Difference Assessees Are Directed Against The Different Order Dated 16.01.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac (In The Case Of Manoj Diwakar Patane) & Order Dated 21.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Pune-11 (In The Case Of Smita Manoj Patane) For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of Two Different Assessees, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.437/Pun/2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18 (In The Case Of Manoj Diwakar Patane) As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 133A

order of assessment in gross violation of the provision of natural justice and further erred in confirming the action of AO in passing ex-parte assessment ignoring the statements of assessee recorded during the course of survey u/s 133A of Income Tax Act and without considering the copies of books

Manoj Diwakar Patane, Kolhapur vs. ITO Ward 2(1) Kolhapur, Kolhapur

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

ITA 437/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.437/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Manoj Diwakar Patane, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), 339/21/22/23, Vasant Kolhapur. Sahawas, Wing F-3, Shahupuri, Karveer- 416003. Pan : Aippp3853K Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.711/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Samita Manoj Patane, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Shop No.1 653/A, Kusum Kolhapur. Apartment, 2Nd Lane, Shahupuri- 416001. Pan : Amypp8375M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 10.02.2025 : Date Of Pronouncement 05.05.2025 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: These Appeals Filed By Two Difference Assessees Are Directed Against The Different Order Dated 16.01.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac (In The Case Of Manoj Diwakar Patane) & Order Dated 21.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Pune-11 (In The Case Of Smita Manoj Patane) For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of Two Different Assessees, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.437/Pun/2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18 (In The Case Of Manoj Diwakar Patane) As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 133A

order of assessment in gross violation of the provision of natural justice and further erred in confirming the action of AO in passing ex-parte assessment ignoring the statements of assessee recorded during the course of survey u/s 133A of Income Tax Act and without considering the copies of books

Preamraj Nadar Kasirajan, Kanchipuram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Kanchipuram

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

ITA 242/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.S. Dwarakesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 144Section 69A

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘)]. We note that the Ld.CIT(A) despite finding that AO had passed ex-parte assessment order, has not even bothered to ask assessee ‘as to why’ he didn’t participate in the assessment proceedings and simply confirmed the addition without

Avinash S Sadamate ACIT Circle 3 3 1, Mumbai vs. Vijay Security Systems Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1208/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Acit Circle-(3)(3)(1) Vijay Security Systems Private Room No. 552, Aayakar Limited, 35 Chandivali Village Off Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (East), Churchgate, Mumbai-400072. Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaacv1363L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri. Sandeep Chaturvedi Ca Revenue By Ms. Pradnya Gholap, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/05/2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Revenue / Assessing Officer Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Ld. Cit(A)) Dated 24.01.2025 For A.Y. 2009-10. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “ (1) "Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Has Justified In Treating The Assessment Completed Ex-Parte U/S.144 Of The Act Disregarding The Fact That Desired Details Called For Were Not Submitted Before The Ao I.E. Ito-11(3)(3) Having Jurisdiction Over The Case?" (Ii) "Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Has Justified In Not Deciding The Appeal On Merit Of The Additions Made By Ao & In Fact, Not Considering The Fact That The Information Of Obtaining Accommodation Bills Towards Alleged Bogus Purchases Was Received From The Sales Department?" (Iii) "Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Has Rightly Dismissed The Appeal Without Considering The Fact That The Genuineness Of The Details Submitted By The Assessee During Remand Proceedings By The Assessee Officer Could Not Be Ascertained In The Absence Of Parties Involved & The Same Was Not Questioned As Well By The Ld.Cit(A)?" Acit Vs Vijay Security Services (Iv) "The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend And/Or Vary Grounds Of Appeal Before Or During The Course Of Hearing.”

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 254(1)Section 69C

file appeal against his own finding. The Ld. CIT(A) on appreciation of evidence held that AO has accepted the evidence still ex-parte assessment was completed. Thus, the ld. CIT(A) rightly quashed the assessment order. The Ld. AR of the assessee submit that ratio of decision in PCIT

Bhavna Satish Mori, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(2)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 31/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 144Section 250Section 69A

failure to comply with the same. 2.2 The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and or on facts in confirming the ex-parte assessment u/s 144 though there was a sufficient cause for non-compliance to notices issued by AO. 3.1 The ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred

Amita Dutta, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Thane

In the result, substantial ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1229/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 254(1)Section 46ASection 69

Bhayender Road, Mira Road East, Maharashtra-401107. Fresh address of assessee was also mentioned in the subsequent return of income. The AO passed ex-parte assessment order. The assessee purchased the flat from Raviraj Housing in the joint name with her husband for a consideration

Wasim Akram, Sikar vs. Income Tax Officer, Sikar

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

ITA 1314/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Mrs. Vipula Kumari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT a
Section 142(1)Section 144

opportunity to furnish the requisite details, documents and accounts on or before 29.11.2019, failing which assessment in his case will be completed as ex-parte assessment under the provisions of section 144 of the Act on the basis of material available. However, the appellant has not submitted the required details ... appear or filed any reply to the notices which were issued by the ld. AO during the assessment proceedings, finally the assessee completed ex-parte assessment. However, the Bench feels that the assessee because of any reasons could not advance his arguments/submissions to contest the case before the lower authorities

Rajasthan State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT-Cercle 6, Jaipur

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

ITA 234/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Rohan Chatter, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

assessee appellant. 1.1 That in the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) grossly erred in confirming ex-parte assessment order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer. 2. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. Assessing Officer grossly erred in imposing ... assessee appellant. 1.1 That in the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) grossly erred in confirming ex-parte assessment order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer. 2. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. Assessing Officer grossly erred in imposing

Rajasthan State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

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

ITA 233/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Rohan Chatter, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

assessee appellant. 1.1 That in the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) grossly erred in confirming ex-parte assessment order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer. 2. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. Assessing Officer grossly erred in imposing ... assessee appellant. 1.1 That in the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) grossly erred in confirming ex-parte assessment order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer. 2. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. Assessing Officer grossly erred in imposing

Rajashthan State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

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

ITA 232/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Rohan Chatter, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

assessee appellant. 1.1 That in the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) grossly erred in confirming ex-parte assessment order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer. 2. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. Assessing Officer grossly erred in imposing ... assessee appellant. 1.1 That in the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) grossly erred in confirming ex-parte assessment order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer. 2. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. Assessing Officer grossly erred in imposing

Navratan Jewellers, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Raipur

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of over aforesaid observations

ITA 127/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 127/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri B. Subramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 147Section 250Section 251(1)(a)

empowered Commissioner Appeals to examine the cases where assessment order was passed u/s 144 of the Act which is an ex-parte assessment and to set aside the assessment in appropriate matters and refer the case back to the AO for making a fresh assessment. The Finance Act also proposes

Dipanshu Gupta, Howwrah vs. ITO, Ward - 37(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2449/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 250

death of Shri K.K. Jha, the appellant take interest of his income tax affairs and only recently came to know the incident of ex-parte assessment order under section 147/144/1448 dated 25.03.2022, penalty order under section 271(1)(b) dated 15.09.2022 & u/s 271(1)(c) dated 23.09.2022, assessment order

Dipanshu Gupta, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward - 37(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2448/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 250

death of Shri K.K. Jha, the appellant take interest of his income tax affairs and only recently came to know the incident of ex-parte assessment order under section 147/144/1448 dated 25.03.2022, penalty order under section 271(1)(b) dated 15.09.2022 & u/s 271(1)(c) dated 23.09.2022, assessment order

Champubhai Desabhai Vala, Amreli vs. The I.T.O., Ward 3(1)(4), Amreli

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

ITA 206/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhahahaha /Ita No. 206 /Rit/ 2024

For Appellant: Ms. Devina Patel, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 144rSection 147Section 148Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN

Ashish Kamalakar Vaidya, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 22(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 299/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarashish Kamalakar Vaidya Vs. Ito – 22(1)(2) C/Of C-304, Eastern Court, Room No. 308, Pirmal Junction Of Tejpal & Chamber, Lal Baug, Parleshwar Road, Vile Parle Parel, Mumbai. East, Mumbai – 400057. Pan/Gir No. Ahopv0333J (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 154Section 250Section 48

consideration of Rs. one crore and on advice deposited self assessment tax @ 20% Later on the appellant came to know regarding passing of ex-parte assessment order and penalty order and upon receipt of the assessment order, the assessee observed two apparent errors therein. Firstly, the AO had failed

Bhoopram Sharma, Panchkula vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward No.1, Panchkula

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

ITA 860/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rishab Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 270ASection 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

Assessing Officer (AO) concluded that the assessee’s failure to comply with multiple statutory notices left no option but to proceed with an ex-parte assessment under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on available records. The AO found that the cash deposits

Shrikant Chandrakant Lokhande, Latur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Latur

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

ITA 2696/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2696/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ganesh Vijaykumar PawarFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Manish Sinha
Section 115BSection 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 208Section 234B(1)Section 249Section 249(4)

submitted that the assessee could not comply with the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act and AO has passed an ex-parte Assessment Order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 02.11.2023. It is accordingly submitted that the appeal filed by the assessee may kindly

Pukhraj, Bharatpur vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-1, Bharatpur

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

ITA 1114/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalpukhraj, C/O. Virendra Singh Gothiya, Atal Bandh Gate, Dhau Pyasa, Bharatpur 321 001 Pan No.: Birpp 6009G ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Bharatpur ...... Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Sankalp Pitaliya, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT- Ld. DR
Section 148Section 250

notices issued by the AO u/s. 142(1) and 148 of the Act, how he came to know about the adverse ex-parte assessment order passed against him. Further, how he received the assessment order required to file the appeal before the Ld. CIT (A). On this issue except allegations