← 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

Rajasthan Shiksha Sankul Bhawan Samiti, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1013/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2024AY 2015-16
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 271Section 271(1)

2 2. 1 on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in dismissing the appeal

Excellent Power Controls, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1(, Bangalore

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

ITA 1981/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri R Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V Parithivel, JCIT (DR)
Section 115BSection 69C

actual delivery of goods which is placed on pages 15 and 19 of the paper books. The ld. AR also submitted that the ex-parte assessment prevented the assessee from furnishing the necessary evidence. Accordingly, a request was made by the ld. AR to remit the matter ... Commercial Tax Department's report alleging bogus supplies which requires independent verification, but the AO has not done so. Furthermore, it was the ex-parte assessment, and no remand report was called for by the ld. CIT(A). It is pertinent to note that the ld. CIT-A also noted

Excellent Power Controls, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1980/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri R Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V Parithivel, JCIT (DR)
Section 115BSection 69C

actual delivery of goods which is placed on pages 15 and 19 of the paper books. The ld. AR also submitted that the ex-parte assessment prevented the assessee from furnishing the necessary evidence. Accordingly, a request was made by the ld. AR to remit the matter ... Commercial Tax Department's report alleging bogus supplies which requires independent verification, but the AO has not done so. Furthermore, it was the ex-parte assessment, and no remand report was called for by the ld. CIT(A). It is pertinent to note that the ld. CIT-A also noted

Excellent Power Controls, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1979/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri R Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V Parithivel, JCIT (DR)
Section 115BSection 69C

actual delivery of goods which is placed on pages 15 and 19 of the paper books. The ld. AR also submitted that the ex-parte assessment prevented the assessee from furnishing the necessary evidence. Accordingly, a request was made by the ld. AR to remit the matter ... Commercial Tax Department's report alleging bogus supplies which requires independent verification, but the AO has not done so. Furthermore, it was the ex-parte assessment, and no remand report was called for by the ld. CIT(A). It is pertinent to note that the ld. CIT-A also noted

Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5, Nagpur vs. The Nirmal Ujwal Credit Co-Op Society Ltd, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the assessment year

ITA 390/NAG/2019[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Nagpur27 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Vikash Agrawal
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

accounts but ironically discarded income and estimated profit. The income can be estimated only in two circumstances, either in case of an ex-parte assessment or when books of accounts are rejected. In this case neither an ex-parte order is passed nor books are rejected. The section

Asger Abdulhusein Gandhi, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5155/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sharad Lad, Ld. C.AFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas P., Sr. A.R
Section 144Section 250Section 68

this case, the Assessing Officer (AO), due to non-compliance of the Assessee despite affording various opportunities, was constrained to pass the ex-parte assessment order dated 28.04.2021 u/s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on best judgment and ultimately made the additions of Rs.11,56,000/- as unexplained cash

S A S Traders, Kolar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kolar

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

ITA 1576/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri R. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 249(4)Section 69A

return was filed. Notice u/s. 142(1) was issued which was also not replied. A show cause notice was issued on 07.03.2022 intimating ex-parte assessment. The assessee in reply dated 22.03.2022 made submissions and furnished only statement of computation of income and unaudited copy of balance sheet and Profit

Late Ranjeet Mukundrao Hasle (Through Legal Heir Kusum M. Hasle), Latur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -2, Beed

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

ITA 1559/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

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

Section 115BSection 144Section 250Section 69A

Assessee had informed the Assessing Officer(AO) that Assessee was critically ill, hence, was unable to submit the details. Assessing Officer passed an ex-parte assessment order deciding the total income at Rs.28,90,475/-. Ld.AR submitted that assessment order was passed on 23.12.2019 and unfortunately assessee expired

Valjibhai Arjanbhai Vegad, Bhavnagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(9), Bhavnagar

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

ITA 1063/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1063/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Valjibhai Arjanbhai Vegad The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Rajput Street Ward-1(9) V/S. Nawangam Ga Bhavnagar- 364 002 Tal : Vallabhipur Bhavnagar – 364 313 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aykpv 0860 F अपीलाथ&/ (Appellant) '( यथ&/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohit Balani, Ar Revenue By : Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/11/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 234ASection 271ASection 69A

expertise, forwarded all physical copies of notices promptly but did not know that the consultant failed to act. • After learning about the ex-parte assessment order, the assessee engaged a new consultant and filed Form 35 for an appeal before the CIT(A), specifically requesting that all future notices

Mahender Singh, Panipat vs. ITO Ward - 2, Panipat

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

ITA 9672/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhmahender Singh, Income Tax Officer, S/O Mam Chand, Ward-2, Panipat. H.No.413, Vs. Vpo Binjhol, Panipat, Haryana-132103. Pan:Borpm4104F (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

compliance by the assessee in lieu of notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act on various dates. The AO framed ex-parte assessment u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act. The AO noticed from the copy of bank account statement received from assessee’s bank, that the assessee

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad vs. Rajuri Steel and Tmt Bars Pvt. Ltd., Jalna

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1298/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1298/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Rajuri Steel & Tmt Aurangabad. Bars Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.F-16-17 & Gut No.49, 51 & 52, Additional Midc, Phase- Ii, Daregaon, Jalna- 431203. Pan : Aaics2970E Appellant Respondent C.O. No.32/Pun/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1298/Pun/2024) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Rajuri Steel & Tmt Bars Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-2, Pvt. Ltd., Aurangabad. Plot No.F-16-17 & Gut No.49, 51 & 52, Additional Midc, Phase-Ii, Daregaon, Jalna- 431203. Pan : Aaics2970E Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Assessee By : Shri B. D. Bhide Date Of Hearing 05.11.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement : 12.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-12, Pune [‘Ld. Cit(A)’]

For Appellant: Shri B. D. BhideFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Counsel of the assessee that even the above request letter dated 25.03.2022 was never ever referred by the Assessing Officer in his ex-parte assessment order, therefore, it was submitted that the Assessing Officer erred in not considering/referring/providing the information/documents required by the assessee prior to passing of the assessment ... record including the paper books furnished by both the parties. We find that the assessment order was passed ex-parte and in the ex-parte assessment orders, the Assessing Officer has not mentioned even the name of the parties with whom the so called transactions were entered into

Rajesh Chaudhary, Haryana vs. DCIT Central Circle-31, New Delhi

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

ITA 2032/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumarshri Rajesh Dcit, Central Chaudhary, 147-148, Circle-31, New Delhi K C Road, Faridabad, Vs. Haryana-110019 Pan No Afspc1241A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 127(1)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 269SSection 271D

time of hearing, Learned authorized representative of the appellant/assessee submitted that Learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the appeal was against ex-parte assessment order. Learned CIT(A) passed ex-parte order without appreciating that the appellant had submitted explanation in response to notice issued

Anmol Developers, Ahmedabad vs. Addl/Jt/Dy./ITO, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Present Jurisdiction the ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 345/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri TR Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Jimi Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-D.R
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 271FSection 69

various opportunities given by the Ld. A.O., the assessee remained silent and not responded to the statutory notices, which has warranted in passing ex-parte assessment order. Though the assessee was not co- operative before the A.O. but filed the appeal within time limit. When the ld. CIT(A) issued ... assessee failed to file regular return of income nor in response to the notices issued by the authorities which has resulted in passing ex-parte assessment. Further, no relevant documentary evidences produced before us. 6. In the above circumstances, we deem it fit to impose a cost

Vetabayan Palani, Dharmapuri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Dharmapuri

In the result, the appeal raised by the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2242/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2242 /Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Chinthapalli Meher Chand, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 250

order also clearly indicated that complete details were not forthcoming from the assesse. As a result of which he had to resort to ex-parte assessment. We are therefore of the view that ends of justice would be met if the assessee is given one last opportunity to present

Navin Ramesh Manshani, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3570/MUM/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri. Br Baskaran & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI. BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. RAJ KUMAR

Mr Dnyaneshwar Baburao Kathe, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Pune

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

ITA 432/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.432/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mr. Dnyaneshwar Baburao Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Pune. Kathe, Janori Dhawa, 10Th Mail Road, Dindori, Nashik- 422206. Pan : Bbppk3199D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Krishna V. Gujarathi Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.01.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) On The Facts & In The Circumstance Of The Case & In Law The Honorable Cit(A) Has Erred & Is Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.31,58,740/- By Treating The Cash Deposits Made By The Assessee In The Saving Bank Account Of Dena Bank As Unexplained Income Without Appreciating The Fact That The Said Cash Deposited In The Bank Was Out Of Agriculture Sale Proceeds. The Appellant Prays That The Addition May Please Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Krishna V. GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 148Section 3Section 50CSection 54F

second one Rs.40,25,000/- represents income from long term capital gains on the sale of agricultural land. 4. Against the above ex-parte assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. After considering the reply of the assessee, ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal

Manish Kumar Vij, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 31(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3706/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Manish Kumar Vij Ito-31(2)(3) Room No. 613, 6Th Floor, 2B-404, Gaikwad Nagar, Gate No.8, Malwani, Malad (W), Kautilya Bhavan, G Block, Vs. Mumbai-400 095 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051

For Appellant: Shri Kunal ShahFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 139Section 144Section 250Section 69A

case, and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the leased AO in passing ex-parte assessment order under section 144 of the Act 1.5 On facts and in the circumstances of the ease, and in law, the learned

Alok Joshi, Uttrakhand vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3219/MUM/2024[AY 2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Ms. Kshipra Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 246ASection 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

Dinesh Ramanbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1506/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1506/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Dinesh Ramanbhai Patel The Ito बनाम/ 23, Shyam Sharan Part-2 Ward-3(2)(1) V/S. Aarohi Club Road Ahmedabad Bopal-Ghuma Ahmedabad – 380 058 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Btbpp 3659 P अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) ….. Assessee By : Shri Shri Kushal Fofaria, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Shri Kushal Fofaria, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250(6)Section 272ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 272A(3)(aa)Section 69

After the consultant failed to respond, the assessee sought help from a friend, who logged into the e-filing portal and discovered that ex-parte assessment and penalty orders had been passed. 5. The consultant had not made any submissions in the e-proceedings section of the portal. Instead

Parmar Buildtech, Mumbai vs. DCIT-42(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3564/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 263(1)Section 40Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI. OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. RAJ