“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

People Tree Chits Private Limited, Chamarajpet vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2270/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri. R. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. V. Parithivel, JCIT

Section 115BSection 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 156Section 249Section 249(4)Section 250Section 69A

filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Before us, the learned AR of the assessee submitted that the AO has passed an ex-parte assessment under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. Further the assessee could not represent its case before the AO since all the notices posted

Gurmukh Singh Sandhu, Vpo Manuke vs. Income Tax Officer (OSD)-2, Jagraon

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

ITA 496/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 496/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 बनाम Gurmukh Singh Sandhu, The Ito (Osd-2), Near B. D. Public School, Jagraon, Vpo Manuke, Tehsil Jagraon, Ludhiana 142034 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Bqrps5927C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Virtual Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11.11.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.01.2025 आदेश/Order The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], For The Assessment Year 2011- 12. Ita No.496-Chd-2024 Gurmukh Signh Sandhu, Ludhiana 2 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 31,89,350/- On Account Of Unexplained Cash Deposits In The Bank Accounts Of The Assessee. The Assessing Officer During The Assessment Proceedings Noted That The Assessee Had Deposited An Amount Of Rs. 31,89,350/- In His Bank Accounts (Rs. 25,75,000 With Bank Of Baroda & Rs. 6,14,350/- In Hdfc Bank). The Assessing Officer Treated The Aforesaid Amount As Unexplained Income Of The Assessee & Made The Impugned Addition.

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, JCIT

given a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the ld. CIT(A). Further, as noted above, the impugned assessment order is also an ex-parte assessment order. In my view, the interests of justice will be well served if, the Assessee is given an opportunity to present his case before

Mohd Vizzarath Ali, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1271/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad01 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1271/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Mohd.Vizzarath Ali Vs. Ito, Ward-8(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Avdpa3594K] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Ms.S.Sandhya, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Ms.P.Sunitha, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 01/01/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 01/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.08.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2017-18. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That The Appeal Has Been Filed With A Delay Of 47 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay & Submitted That The Assessee Was Under Medical Treatment For B/L Renal Calculi & Lumbar Spondalysis & He Was Advised Complete Bedrest. The Assessee

For Appellant: Ms.S.Sandhya, ARFor Respondent: : Ms.P.Sunitha, DR

Section 115BSection 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

furnish return of income on or before 31.08.2017. But the assessee failed to furnish the return of income. Therefore, the Assessing Officer passed ex-parte assessment order u/s 144 of the Act on the basis of material available on record and made addition of Rs.31,70,720/- towards credits

Govindbhai Atmaram Thakor, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1629/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. D.R

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 250Section 69A

Portal and as such he was unaware about the notices of hearing issued by both the lower authorities which resulted into ex-parte assessment u/s. 144 and addition of Rs. 18,01,075/-. Therefore, the additional evidence produced during the hearing of this appeal may be admitted. There

Shramik Nagri Sahkari Patsanstha, Maryadit, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(1), Pune

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

ITA 2283/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 144Section 148ASection 250Section 69ASection 80P(2)(a)

A.Y.2015-16 dated 28.09.2024. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1] The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in confirming an ex-parte assessment order u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act determining income at Rs. 5,03,03,556/- without considering the fact of the case which ... Assessee. The Assessing Officer issued noticed under section 148 of the Act. Since assessee failed to comply, the Assessing Officer passed an ex-parte assessment order. Assessing Officer collected statement of accounts under section 133(6) of the Act from “Janaseva Sahakari Bank Limited, Hadapsar, Pune” and “Lokseva Sahakari Bank

Rasmikaben Kiranbhai Raval, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(4), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1218/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

grounds of appeal :- “1. The order passed by U/s.250 passed on 15.04.2024 by NFAC, [CIT(A)], Delhi (for short "CIT(A)" upholding the ex-parte assessment u/s.144 as well as additions aggregating to Rs.22.90,000/- made by A.O. is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice

Jayanti Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 334/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumarshri Tr Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimalsinh B Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 234ASection 249Section 249(4)(b)Section 271ASection 271FSection 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in confirming ex-parte assessment order framed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 144 of the Act. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts

Bhavana Pratikkumar Bhatt, Mumbai vs. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center

ITA 1296/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1296/Mum/2024

Dipikaben Alpeshkumar Patel Legal Heir of Late Alpeshkumar Jagdishbhai Patel, Anand vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anand

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1687/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Arti N Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. K. Mangla, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 69A

invalid return was provided. The AO issued a show- cause notice, but the assessee failed to respond, leading the AO to complete the ex-parte assessment under Section 144 of the Act, and made additions under Section 69A of the Act for unexplained cash deposits. 4. Before Ld. CIT(Appeals

Sanjay Tyagi, Shahpur Morta vs. ITO Ward 2(2)(4), Ghaziabad

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 198/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.198/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sanjay Tyagi, Vs Income Tax Officer, H.No. 34, Shahpur Nij Morta, Ward-2(2)(4), Ghaziabad-201003 Ghaziabad-201002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afipt2764H Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13, Arises Against The Order Of Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Order Dated 17.11.2023 In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1058023550(1), In Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 250(6)Section 69

parte. 3. It emerges from a perusal of the instant case file and the department valuable assistance that the Assessing Officer had framed ex-parte assessment against the assessee on 08.11.2019 adding an amount off Rs.25,10,500/- as undisclosed income u/s 69 of the Act representing cash deposits

Trinetra Aluminium Alloys, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 1(4), Faridabad

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2427/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2013-14 Trinetra Aluminium Alloys, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(4), Plot No. 674, Sector-69, Imt New Delhi Faridabad, C.R. Building, Haryana-121009 Faridabad, (Pan: Aaeft3928L) Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 68

having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. A O has erred in law and on facts in passing an ex-parte assessment order us 144 of the Income Tax Act, that too without giving any opportunity of being heard. 6) That having regard to the facts

Somnath Kelavni Mandal, Nadiad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Exemption-Baroda

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

ITA 937/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri TR Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. D.R

Section 144Section 69A

appellate order dated 04-03-2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi arising out of the ex-parte assessment order passed u/s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) relating to the assessment year

Jitendra Amrutlal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, these Tax Appeals are also allowed

ITA 517/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Your Honour On 10-12-2024, You Are Requested To Adjourn The Above Referred Matters & Oblige. Sorry For Inconvenience In The Matters”. Thus, The Assessee Has Not Spelt Out Any Reason For Seeking Adjournment In Spite Of Service Of Notices. Further, Perusal Of The Assessment Orders Also Make It Clear The Same Were Ex-Parte Before The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-D.R

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

addition of Rs. 4,64,91,160/- as unexplained income u/s. 69A of the Act and demanded tax thereon. 3. Aggrieved against the ex-parte assessment orders, the assessee properly filed appeal before the CIT(A), wherein 10 opportunities of hearing were given from

Jitendra Amrutlal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, these Tax Appeals are also allowed

ITA 516/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-D.R

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Income Tax Officer 42(1)(2), Mumbai, Bandra Kurla Complex vs. Dilip Ramniklal Bania, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the aforesaid terms

ITA 3733/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, Sr. D.R

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

bogus and unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act and added the same to the total income of the Assessee while passing the ex-parte assessment order under section 144 of the Act. 5. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition before the Ld. Commissioner, however, in spite

Gurcharan Singh Co Ravinder Singh Baba Deep Singh Nagar, Mullanpur Distt Ludhiana, Punjab vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1), Ludhiana, Punjab

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

ITA 767/CHANDI/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) And, Therefore, He Was Prevented By Sufficient & Reasonable Cause, In Not Appearing Before The Ld. Cit(A).

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 271A

covid lockdown and the fact that he was not physically present in India at the relevant point in time resulting in ex-parte assessment and penalty orders being passed by the AO. 8. In view of the above, in the interest of justice, the matter in all these cases

Kanak Pramukhlal Sandesara, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 984/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad06 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Assessee (Adjournment application filed)For Respondent: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr. D.R

Section 115BSection 144Section 69A

further adjournment. We observe that the assessee remained non-compliant all throughout the assessment proceedings wherein the AO was forced to pass an ex-parte assessment order u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act (in short ‘the Act’) in absence of any cooperation/appearance on the part of the assessee, despite multiple

Mamta Sumesh Jaggi, Ahmednagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 1545/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1545/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Mamta Sumesh Jaggi, Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Gaikwad Colony, Civil Hadko, Ahmednagar. Behind Zopdi Canteen Savedi Road, S.O. Sawedi, Ahmednagar- 414003. Pan : Ahqpj9065K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Paras Munot Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06.12.2024 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) The Ld. Assessing Officer Has Erred In Law & Fact In Making Addition Of Rs.1,62,32,990/- As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The It Act Without Considering Factual Position.

For Appellant: Shri Paras MunotFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 147Section 148Section 69A

were issued along with questionnaire. But the notices remained un-complied and consequently the Assessing Officer proceeded to pass ex-parte assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B by determining total income at Rs.1,64,55,640/-, as against the income returned by the assessee at Rs.2

Aditi Express Cargo India Private Limited, Nagpur vs. DCIT ACIT Circle -3, Nagpur

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 560/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitin Gulati a/w Pankaj KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

reassessment appears to be based on mere assumptions without establishing a live link between the information and the alleged income escapement. 4. Ex-Parte Assessment without Adequate Opportunity: The assessment was completed ex-parte due to non-compliance with notices under Section 142(1), which were not properly served

Aditi Express Cargo India Private Limited, Nagpur vs. DCIT ACIT Circle -3, Nagpur

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 559/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitin Gulati a/w Pankaj KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250