“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

Satish Shantilal Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(3)(5), Surat

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

ITA 734/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamblesatish Shantilal Patel, Income Tax Officer, Vs. E-2, Subhalaxmi Complex, Ward-1(3)(5), City Light, Surat. Nr. Sahaj Super Store, Surat-395007. [Pan : Agxpp7849 P] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Pm Jagasheth, Ar Respondent By: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri PM Jagasheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 250Section 274

circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in passing ex-parte assessment order U/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject

Vikramkumar Bhavarlal Dave, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(2), Vadodara

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

ITA 828/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.828/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Vikramkumar Bhavarlal Dave The Ito बनाम/ C-168, Shivam Duplex Ward-1(2)(2) V/S. Opp. Ambe School Vadodara – 390 007 Manjalpur Vadodara – 390 011 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Brqpd 7728 G (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prashant Upadhyay, Ca Revenue By : Shri Alpesh Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/02/2026 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 07/11/2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. The Assessee, In This Appeal, Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Of Rs.3,01,65,800/- On Account Of Bogus/Unexplained Expenditure. Vikramkumar Bhavarlal Dave Vs. Ito Asst.Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Upadhyay, CAFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

station. Even on his return, the said AR did not inform the assessee of any such notices resulting into an ex-parte assessment order making an addition of Rs. 3,01,65,800/-. Further, the said AR of the assessee also did not represent the case of the assessee before

Vimalkumar Bansilal Thakkar, Vadodara vs. ITO Ward 4(1)(3) Vadodara, Vadodara

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2622/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 2621 & 2622/Ahd/2025 Assessment Year 2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh H. Sodha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. D.R

Section 144Section 148

accordingly added to income. As the assessee is NRI and was completely unaware of show cause notices, he could not respond to notices. Ex-parte assessment was framed and hence this appeal. Submissions alongwith Form 35 was not considered by CIT(A), I.T.A Nos. 2621 & 2622/Ahd/2025 Vimalkumar Bansilal Thakkar ... accordingly added to income. As the assessee is NRI and was completely unaware of show cause notices, he could not respond to notices. Ex-parte assessment was framed and hence this appeal. Submissions alongwith Form 35 was not considered by CIT(A), which should have been considered as material available

Vimalkumar Bansilal Thakkar, Vadodara vs. ITO Ward 4(1)(3) Vadodara, Vadodara

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2621/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 2621 & 2622/Ahd/2025 Assessment Year 2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh H. Sodha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. D.R

Section 144Section 148

Kishore Sewani, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 23(2)(6), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3006/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailkishore Sewani 1St Floor 19, Krishna Niwas, 2Nd Fanas Wadi Dadi Seth Aigari Lane, Mumbai - 400002. ............... Appellant Pan: Abbps4546F V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward – 23(2)(6), ……………… Respondent Mumbai

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

current year. 3. That the impugned assessment order and impugned CIT(A) order has erred in law while passing the impugned ex-parte assessment order u/s. 144 as the order was passed without affording any opportunity of being heard to assessee and against the principles of natural justice. 4. That

Jinesh Lalit Jain, Raigad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, Panvel, Raigad

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

ITA 2127/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2127/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Jinesh Lalit Jain, Vs. Ito, Ward-5, Panvel. 110, Mcch Society Ltd., Panvel Raigarh, Panvel- 410206. Pan : Acwpj0187B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Manthan Ruparelia Revenue By Shri Basavaraj Hiremath : Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.07.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Hon'Ble Cit(A), Nfac Erred In Not Considering The Assessment Order Is Bad In Law As Reopening U/S 147 Was Based Merely On Third-Party Information Without Independent Verification Or Recorded Reasons Furnished To The Appellant. 2. The Hon'Ble Cit(A), Nfac Erred By Not Providing Proper Opportunity Breached The Principles Of Natural Justice. 3. The Hon'Ble Cit(A), Nfac Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 53,12,313/- Ignoring The Appellant'S Reconciliations, Contra

For Appellant: Shri Manthan Ruparelia

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69

being unexplained credits in the bank account as against no return filed by the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved with the above ex-parte assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. After considering the reply of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal filed

Jalpaiguri Zilla Regulated Market Committee, Jalpaiguri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Jalpaiguri

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

ITA 2796/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 271BSection 44A

26AAB). Penalty for failure to obtain audit is unjustified in the facts of the case. Ground 3: The estimated turnover adopted in the ex-parte assessment u/s 144 cannot form the valid basis for levy of penalty u/s 271B. Ground 4: The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal

Boda Ramasatyanarayana, Draksharamam vs. Income Tax Officer, Kakinada

ITA 532/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)(i)Section 144Section 69A

complied with the notices issued by the A.O under section 142(1) of the Act, which, thus, had resulted into framing of an ex-parte assessment by the A.O vide his order passed under section 144 of the Act dated 15.12.2019. The assessee, despite having burnt his fingers and been

Mahinder Kaur, Panchkula vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Panchkula

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 937/CHANDI/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 937/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mahinder Kaur, The Ito, Village-Manak Pur Devi, Vs Panchkula. Post Office-Pinjore, Tehsil-Kalka,Panchkula. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Bgnpm2629H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Mukesh Pandey, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Pandey, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr. DR

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

dates from 13.04.2010 to 12.02.2011. No one has appeared on her behalf in response to notice given by the AO. Hence, in the ex-parte assessment order, AO has made an addition of Rs.2.33 Cr. 8. In appeal, the ld.CIT (Appeals) has not adjudicated any issue, though noticed the fact ... abruptly dismissed the appeal without judging any of the issues. Therefore, impugned order is not sustainable. Since assessment order is also an ex-parte assessment order and if we set aside the issues to the file of A.Y.2011-12 7 CIT (Appeals), then ld. First Appellate Authority ought to have called

Income Tax Officer-16(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Bhavini Kartik Mehta, Mumbai

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

ITA 5266/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. Vipul ShahFor Respondent: 16/12/2025

Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

Consequently, proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Act. Consequently, the Assessing Officer framed an ex the Assessing Officer framed an ex-parte assessment under section parte assessment under section 147 read with section 144 of the Act on 16.05.2023, making the 147 read with section

Arfeen Mozaffar Khan, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 24(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed with cost for statistical

ITA 4884/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri MilindWadhwani, (virtually appear)For Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, (Sr. DR)

Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69A

balance of Rs. 1,39,19,364/- was treated as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Act and passed an ex-parte assessment order under section 144/147 of the Act on account of non compliance before him, assessing total income at Rs. 1,45,17,998/-.Aggrieved

Samta Devcon Private Limited, Indore vs. CIT Appeal Neac, Delhi

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose,

ITA 259/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

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

Section 144Section 147

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

Muniyappa Nagaraj, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer. Ward-4(2)(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1294/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Balaram R Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250

assessee in the affidavit for delay condonation explained that he filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) Page 2 of 8 against the ex-parte assessment order passed under section 144 of the Act. The assessee entrusted the matter to an authorized representative. Hearing notices were issued by the appellate

Sunil, Indore vs. ITO 1(1), Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 695/IND/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 272A(1)(d)Section 68

Sunil ITA No. 695/Ind/2025 - AY 2019-20 6.4 Appellant has not submitted any submission to support his Ground of Appeal

Sahil Phutela, Ambala City vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Ambala

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1383/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1383/Chd/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Sahil Phutela, The Ito, C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh,Advocate, Vs Ward -4, 527, Sector 10-D, Chandigarh. Ambala. "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Cmvpp7771G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Sr. DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 249Section 253Section 271ESection 3Section 5

confirming the penalty levied u/s 271E of the Income Tax Act. A.Y.2017-18 2 3. The brief facts of the case are that an ex-parte assessment order was passed by the ld. AO u/s 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act on 28.03.2022. The AO has made

H R Infracon Limited, Howrah vs. DCIT, Circle 7(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2835/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jan 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 250Section 68

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the ex-parte assessment order passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 144B without appreciating that the said order was passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice. 1.2 That ... defend its case during assessment proceedings due to non-receipt of notices, the proper course of action was to set aside the ex-parte assessment order and remand the matter for fresh assessment. 1.5 That even during appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), despite the Appellant seeking adjournment

Tamtia Gram Seva Sahakari Samiti Limited, Sagwara Dungarpur vs. ITO Ward Dungarpur, Dungarpur

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

ITA 890/JODH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Bletamtia Gram Seva Sahakari Vs. Ito, Ward, Samiti Dungarpur. Limited,Thakurdasagwara,Dung Arpur – 314029. Pan No. Aacat7349E Assessee By Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Advocate (Virtually) Shri Karni Dan, Addl. Cit-Dr (Physically) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 08.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 28.01.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short, The Ld. Nfac/Addl/Jcit(A)] Dated 22.11.2024 With Respect To The Assessment Year 2018-19 Challenging Therein Impugned Order Passed Ex-Parte Qua The Assessee Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (In Short “The Ao”) In An Ex-Parte Assessment Order Passed U/S 144B Of The Act.

Section 144B

therein impugned order passed ex-parte qua the assessee confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer (In short “the AO”) in an ex-parte assessment order passed u/s 144B of the Act. 2 2. We have heard both the sides and perused material on record. From the record

Shri Govindbhai Bhimabhai Ram, Sutrapada, Gir Somnath vs. The ITO Ward 4 Veraval Somnath, Veraval Gir Somnath

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

ITA 677/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld Sr. DR

Section 139Section 144Section 234ASection 271ASection 69A

r.w.s. 115BBE despite the appellant satisfactorily explaining the source of cash deposits. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the ex-parte assessment u/s 144 without considering the genuine cause for non-compliance. 7. The levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C and initiation of penalty u/s 271AAC

Dineshkumar Nanubhai Virval, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-1, Bardoli

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 101/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha&Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri P M JAGASETH, CAFor Respondent: Shri AJAY UKE, SR. DR

Section 115BSection 144Section 69A

Addl. CIT, Range-2(3), Surat had issued notice on 18.09.2019. However, all the notices remained non-complied with. That AO made ex-parte assessment u/s 144 of the Act. During the appellate proceedings, three notices were issued to the appellant, which remained non-complied. Under these circumstances, the order

Sh. Jatinder Kaura (Deceased) Through L/H Smt. Dimple Kaura, Raikot, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jagraon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1394/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1394/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Jatinder Kaura The Ito, (Through L/H Smt. Dimple Kaura, Vs Ward-1, House No. 338, New Green City, Jagraon. Raikot, Distt. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Agwpk6095P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kuldeep Singh, Itp & Shri Mps Malhotra, Itp Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri Kuldeep Singh, ITP & Shri MPS Malhotra, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

solitary grievance of the assessee is that ld.CIT (Appeals) has erred in not condoning the delay in filing appeal and upholding ex-parte assessment order dated 08.12.2019 which was passed against a deceased person. A.Y.2017-18 2 3. The brief facts of the case are that AO has received an information