“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

Husna Begam, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana

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

ITA 970/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Adj. Application (Rejected)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr .DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

assessee and there was legitimate sources for purchase of agricultural land. 6. That the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred while upholding the ex-parte assessment order for the A.Y. 2012-13, which order itself is in violation of the statutory provisions of section

Asif Ali Mohd, Mahabubnagar vs. ITO., Ward-1, Mahabubnagar

In the result, ITA.No.407/Hyd

ITA 408/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri P Vinod, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr. AR

Section 143(2)Section 144(1)Section 147Section 148Section 282Section 44ASection 69A

parties, perused the material on record and the orders of the authorities below. We find that, admittedly the Assessing Officer has passed ex-parte assessment order. During the course of appellate proceedings, the learned CIT(A) has also passed ex-pate order. In view of the above factual position, since

Asif Ali Mohd, Mahabubnagar vs. ITO., Ward-1, Mahabubnagar

In the result, ITA.No.407/Hyd

ITA 407/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri P Vinod, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr. AR

Section 143(2)Section 144(1)Section 147Section 148Section 282Section 44ASection 69A

Bhishm Chauhan, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2), Fbd, Faridabad

In the result, ITA Nos.3969/Del/2024 and 3971/Del/2024

ITA 3969/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT (DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH

Cecilia Ram Bawale, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai

The appeal of the appellant is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1031/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Cecilia Ram Bawale Ito, Ward 12/3, Placid Roadrikas 22(1)(1) Chawl, Near Akash Vs. Mumbai. Darshan Building Vakola, Santacruz-E Mumbai-400 055. Pan : Adipb7697M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh ThakwaniFor Respondent: Shri Yatin Shetty, CA

Section 144Section 50CSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)Section 69

passed an assessment order under section 144 of the I.T. Act as best judgement assessment. Before passing this ex-parte assessment, the Ld. AO has even sent a copy of draft assessment order and requested for his objections. The appellant has not responded to this show- notice notice. Left with

Jai Prakash Kataria, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Gurgaon

The Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 2604/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandrajai Praksh Kataria Vs. Ito House No. 8, Village-Biswa, Ward-2(2) Sector-12A, Gurgaon, Gurgaon, Haryana Haryana Pan: Axcpk4356N Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Jaind Kumar Jaiswal, Adv Revenue By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/04/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Nfac’ For Short] Dated

condonation of delay of three days in filing the present appeal is condoned. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, an ex-parte assessment order came to be passed on 05/12/2019 by the Assessing Officer which has been called in question before

Vikas Graphics and Advertising Hourding, Rajkot vs. ITO WD 2(1)(3), RKT, Rajkot

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

ITA 235/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

email address nor it had any account with the e-filing portal of incometaxfiling.gov.in. 3. The Id AO has erred in making an ex-parte assessment u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act on the basis that the assessee had not complied with the notices issued

Vishwanath Bellad, Gokak vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Gokak

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 61/PAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji04 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 061/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Vishwanath Bellad No123, Godan Plot No. 494, Dalgi Gokak, Belgaum-591312 Pan : Bcapb0771N . . . . . . .Appellant V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gokak. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr S B Gadadi [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 03/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/04/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Impugns Din & Order No. 1067775179(1) Dt. 20/08/2024 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 25/03/2022 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Anent To Assessment Year 2017-18 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: Mr S B Gadadi [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 253(3)Section 69A

unexplained money and framed the consequential assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the ex-parte assessment the assessee instituted an appeal thereagainst before Ld. NFAC, which also came to be dismissed ex-parte owning to non- prosecution and in absence of evidences. Aggrieved

Yogesh Chandra Nishad, Kadipur Khurd vs. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department, Sultanpura

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

ITA 183/ALLD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad04 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 292BSection 56Section 69A

dated 28/03/2023 deserves to be set aside and quashed. 2. Without prejudice to the GOA No. 1-2, the Assessing Officer concluded the ex-parte assessment without appreciating the facts of the case. The Assessing Officer concluded the assessment without providing the reasonable opportunity of being heard and compromise

Income Tax Officer Ward 4(1), Nagpur vs. Sanjay Meemraj Agrawal, Nagpur

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 38/NAG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur04 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Shubham JainFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 144Section 250(4)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

while restoring the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer held as under:– “6. Decision: 6.1 I have carefully considered the ex-parte assessment order, statement of facts, grounds of appeal and submissions furnished during the appellate proceedings. 6.2 It is an undisputed fact that the assessment order

Alice Lourdes Martins, Chinchinim vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji

ITA 39/PAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji03 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 039/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Alice Lourdes Martins 404, 1St-Palvem, Chinchinim Salcete, South Goa, Goa Pan : Abkpl2128D . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Jayant Volvoikar [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 132Section 153CSection 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)

term capital gain accrued her and framed consequential assessment u/s 153C r.w.s. 144 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the ex-parte assessment the assessee instituted an appeal thereagainst before Ld. CIT(A), which also came to be dismissed ex-parte owning to non- prosecution and in the absence

Kailash, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 7 (1), Jaipur

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

ITA 1376/JPR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Apr 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

challenged that action of the AO by raising two grounds of appeal. Ground No 1: Assessing Officer has grossly erred in passing ex-parte assessment order under section 144 without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing This ground lacks merit since the AO has averred that the show cause notice

Biren Dhirajlal Shah, Gandhinagar vs. CIT(A), Gandhinagar

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

ITA 190/AHD/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President\nAnd Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member\nITA No: 194/Ahd/2021 &\nITA No: 190/Ahd/2024\nAssessment Year: 2008-09\nBiren Dhirajlal Shah\nPlot No. 441-1, Sector-22\nNr. Police Chowkey,\nGandhinagar-382021\nPAN: ACSPS5653F\n(Appellant)\nAssessee Represented: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R. &\nMs. Krupa Panchal, CA\nRevenue Represented:\nDate of hearing\nDate of pronouncement\nShri Alpesh Parmar, Sr. D.R.\n: 19-03-2025\n: 03-04-2025\nIncome Tax Officer,\nWard-1,\nV

Section 144Section 17Section 271(1)(c)

good legal consultation to present my case before Id. AO and Id. CIT(A). In intervening period assessment proceeding got unattended resulting into ex-parte assessment order and delay in filing appeals before hon. CIT(A) as well as hon. Tribunal. 3. After that I have appointed consultant in February

Biren Dhirajlal Shah, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 194/AHD/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President\nAnd Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member\nITA No: 194/Ahd/2021 &\nITA No: 190/Ahd/2024\nAssessment Year: 2008-09\nBiren Dhirajlal Shah\nPlot No. 441-1, Sector-22\nNr. Police Chowkey,\nGandhinagar-382021\nPAN: ACSPS5653F\n(Appellant)\nIncome Tax Officer,\nWard-1,\nVs Gandhinagar\n(Respondent)\nAssessee Represented: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R. &\nMs. Krupa Panchal, CA\nRevenue Represented:\nShri Alpesh Parmar, Sr. D.R.\nDate of hearing\n: 19-03-2025\nDate of

Section 144Section 17Section 271(1)(c)

Godavari Vijay Kulkarni (L/H of Late Vijay Kulkarni), Aurangabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Aurangabad

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

ITA 1159/PUN/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S Pathak and Ms. Arrchena ShettyFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT-DR

Section 33(4)

impugned order. 22. It is not disputed that the jurisdictional assessing officer, i.e., respondent no. 2 under the faceless regime passed an ex-parte assessment order, without affording an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. Thus, evaluation of assessment of the petitioner's income and rejecting the submissions

Khatri Hundharaj Hotchand HUF, Palanpur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Palanpur

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

ITA 156/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agrawal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr. D.R

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 148Section 69A

days. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee was not aware of online assessment proceedings and therefore, there was no compliance resulting in ex-parte assessment and addition. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the matter may be remanded back to the file of the AO for proper adjudication

Mohar Singh, Agra vs. I.T.O. Ward 2(1)(2)Agra, Agra

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

ITA 9/AGR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra01 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

Section 144Section 271(1)

17/01/2024. 2. The assessee filed an appeal before the Honorable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals -2) AGRA vide Acknowledgement No. 267544361051219 against the ex-parte assessment order of I.T.O., WARD 2 (1) (2) , AGRA. 3. That the appellant lives in the rural area and earns livelihood for his family

Somesh Parnami, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Jaipur

ITA 28/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 144Section 147Section 250

assessee has not furnished any details / documents. Further a 6 Somesh Parnami vs. ITO notice u/s 142(1) along with show cause for ex-parte assessment giving last and final opportunity to the assessee issued on 13-11-2019 fixing the date for furnishing the details/documents/information

Banti Devi, Kotputli vs. ITO War 5(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA 1341/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Anand Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh choudhary, Addl. CIT a

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)Section 69A

residential address. But in fact no notice was received by the assessee at his correct address and this was the root of the ex-parte assessment made by the Assessing Officer. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has index of paper book containing1

Lala Ram Bagra, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

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

ITA 1327/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT a

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 50CSection 548Section 54F

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 10 Lala Ram Bagra