“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

Rupmata Zilla Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd., Osmanabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Latur

ITA 399/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Smt Astha Chandra & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 399/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rupmata Zilla Nagari Sahakari Pathsanstha Ltd. Samarth Nagar, Dharashiv-413501 Pan: Aaaar9677H . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Pratik Sandbhor [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Sourabh Nayak [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 246A(1)(a)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

best of his judgement u/s 144 of the Act by an order dt. 24/11/2017. 2.2 Aggrieved assessee unsuccessfully assailed the aforestated ex-parte assessment in an appeal before first appellate authority u/s 246A(1)(a) of the Act. On the basis of written submissions and documents freshly adduced

Grand Consulting Services Private Limited, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer -2 (1), Indore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 514/IND/2023[2012-2013]Status: HeardITAT Indore09 May 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanigrand Consulting Servides Pvt. Ito, 2(1) Ltd. Indore 403 C 4Th Floor Gravity Mall 27 Vs. Mechanic Nagar Bhamori (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadcg4729N Assessee By Shri Manish Dafria, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.05.2024

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 140Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 253(1)

circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in not accepting the contention of the assessee that the ex-parte assessment order passed without service of ITANo.514/Ind/2023 Grand Consulting Service Pvt. ltd. proper notice to the assessee and in the name of a different entity

Canterbury Public School, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward Exemption 1(3), New Delhi

Accordingly, due to non-filing of the return of income, vide ex-parte assessment order. Aggrieved, it filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal due to non-prosecution

ITA 3113/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2024AY 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 69A

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and taxed it accordingly, due to non-filing of the return of income, vide ex-parte assessment order. Aggrieved, it filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal due to non-prosecution. 5. Heard the rival parties

Canterbury Public School, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward Exemption 1(3), New Delhi

Accordingly, due to non-compliance in later phase of the assessment, vide ex-parte assessment order. Aggrieved, it filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal due to non-prosecution

ITA 3112/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: the AO that the school took separate PAN different from the PAN of the society for smooth operation of its bank account.

Section 147Section 69A

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and taxed it accordingly, due to non-compliance in later phase of the assessment, vide ex-parte assessment order. Aggrieved, it filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal due to non-prosecution. 5. Heard the rival parties

Computer Modelling Group Limited, Canada vs. ACIT International Taxation Circle 1(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

ITA 2091/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44B

taxable @ 40% as per the provisions of the Act. 5. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) challenging ex-parte assessment under section 147 of the Act as also the addition of Rs. 36,43,550/- made under section 44BB of the Act asserting that

Computer Modelling Group Limited, Canada vs. DCIT Circle International Taxation 1(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

ITA 2090/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44B

Pushpa Joshi, Uttar Pradesh vs. AO Ward 5(2)(4), Gautam Budh Nagar

ITA 901/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year: 2011-12 Pushpa Joshi Vs. Ao, Ward5(2)(4) D-170 Sector-27, Noida Gautam Budh Uttar Pradesh 201 301 Nagar Pan Aeepj0375H Uttar Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

Block D, Sector 27, NOIDA for sum of Rs. 62,50,000/-. Assessee took a home loan. Learned Income Tax Officer passed an ex-parte assessment order under section 147/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 31.10.2018 making an addition of Rs. 62,50,000/- on the ground that ... that no notice under section 148 was served upon the assessee as the same was sent to un-known address. As such impugned ex-parte assessment order was bad in law. The assessee is a regular income taxpayer. Therefore impugned orders may be set aside. 7. Learned Senior Departmental Representative

Computer Modelling Group Limited, Canada vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2)(1), Int. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

ITA 2305/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44B

Rekha Jagadeesh, Bengaluru vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 560/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Smt. Rekha Jagadeesh, AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for department

Section 144Section 271FSection 69A

neighbour received the same and informed the assessee and thereafter only the assessee appeared before the ld. AO on 23.5.2019 and got the ex-parte assessment order dated 25.12.2018. Subsequently, the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) was filed within 30 days. The ld. CIT(A) in his order dated

Chirag Jayantilal Bilakhia, Mumbai vs. ITO, Matru Mandir, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 3942/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Prashant Maharshi & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhanchirag Jayantilal Bilakhia Vs. Income Tax Officer -19(1)(3), B-1803, Magunum Tower, Dr. S. S. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Rao Road, Lalbaug, Mumbai – Mumbai – 400007. Mumbai 400012. Pan: Acepb1247Q

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 253Section 271(1)(b)Section 288A

right state of mind. b) After consultation with my earlier CA, M/s. K. Kaveria & Co., I had preferred an appeal against the said ex-parte assessment order. Page No. 5 Chirag Jayantilal Bilakhia c) At the time of filing of appeal, my earlier CA had mistakenly provided their own email

M/S. Manohar Dealcom Private Limited., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 634/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 634/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Manohar Dealcom Private Limited Income Tax Officer, Ward – C/O Nigam Centre Vs 9(1), Kolkata 155, Lenin Sarani 1St Floor, Room No. 110 Kolkata- 700013 [Pan : Aafcm8273R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, A/R Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar Meena, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 29/04/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Kolkata Who Had No Jurisdiction Over The Case Of The Assessee & As Such The Assessment Is Bad In Law. 2. For That Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 3.86 Crore Made By The Ao U/S 69 In Respect Of Increase In Loans & Advances As Compared To Preceding Financial Year In Spite Of The Fact That The -Loans Were Duly Recorded In The Regular Books Of Account & Were Advanced Out Of Amount Received Against Sale Of Disclosed Investments.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Meena, JCIT, Sr. D/R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69

assessee is dismissed. 6 I.T.A. No. 634/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s. Manohar Dealcom Private Limited 8. Ground No. 4 is regarding the ex-parte assessment order but the same has not been pressed and, therefore, it is dismissed as not pressed. 8.1. Now coming to the merits

Anshuman Sinha, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle -1, Jaipur

In the result, both appeals of the assesee are allowed

ITA 733/JPR/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Apr 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 733 & 739/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Anshuman Singh E-172A, Uttam Tower, Ramesh Marg C-Scheme, Jaipur cuke Vs. The ACIT Circle-1 Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AOUPS 4969 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri S.L. Jain ,Adv Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, Adv Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Shri A.

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain ,AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 147Section 151Section 234ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

raising therein following grounds of appeal. 2 ANSHUMAN SINHA VS ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR ITA NO. 733/JP/2023 A.Y.2010-11 1. The impugned Ex-parte Assessment Order U/s 147/144 dated 30/11/2017 which confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) through Ex-party Appellate order as well as initiation of re-assessment proceedings

Guddu Kanwar, Rajasthan, Sikar vs. ITO Ward 3, Sikar, Rajasthan

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

ITA 190/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT) &

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 250(1)Section 250(4)Section 68

under appeal + addition for cash receipt of Rs. 25,09,497) made by the AO in the total Income, which sustaining of the ex-parte assessment order passed by the AO u/s 144 and thereby sustaining additions of Rs.47,52,922 made by the AO in the total Income ... sustaining addition of Rs 52,24,497 made by the AO in total Income as Income from other sources, which sustaining of the ex-parte assessment order passed by the AO u/s 144 and thereby sustaining additions of Rs.52,24,497 made by the AO in the total Income

Shree Ganesh Tractor, Sehore vs. I.T.O. Ward 1, Sehore

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

ITA 312/IND/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore02 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishree Ganesh Tractors, Nr Ito Ward -1 Moti Baba Mandir Ward 14, Sehore Vs. Sehore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aayfs3945E Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 02.04.2024

Section 144Section 44A

fresh adjudication. 4. We have considered rival submission as well as relevant material on record. The AO has passed ex-parte assessment order when there was no response on behalf of the assessee to the alleged notices issued by the AO. The AO has adopted GP at 3.60% and thereby

Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi, Kasargod, Karnataka vs. Mr. C. Vijay Jayan, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 638/BANG/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.636 To 638/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2018-19 Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi Darul Huda, Near Salafi Masjid Kunjathur Via Dcit Manjeshwar Central Circle-2 Vs. Kasargod 671 323 Mangaluru Karnataka Pan No : Alhpk5340F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: These Appeals By Assessee Are Directed By Different Orders Of Nfac For The Assessment Years 2016-17 To 2018-19 Having Common Date Dated 23.5.2022. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In All These Appeals Are Common In Nature, Except Change In Figures. We Consider Grounds In Ita No.636/Bang/2023, Which Reads As Follows: 1. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Passing The Order In The Manner He Did. 2. The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Upholding The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer Amounting To Rs.6,25,000 As Undisclosed Business Income & Rs.1,99,40,000 As Unexplained Investments Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Which Was Purely On Assumptions & Presumptions Based On The Loose Sheet Found At The Time Of Search.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 34Section 68Section 69Section 69B

would show that the non-speaking document is not corroborated. The AO has completely missed the fundamental concept pertaining to assessment by passing ex-parte assessment order. 9.14 Further, ld. AO considered seized material A/AKK/1, A/AKK/2 to consider the unaccounted income from Royal projects for these three assessment years

Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi, Kasargod, Karnataka vs. Mr. C. Vinod Jayan, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 637/BANG/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2017-2018

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 34Section 68Section 69Section 69B

Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi, Kasargod, Karnataka vs. Mr. C. Vinod Jayan, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 636/BANG/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2016-2017

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 34Section 68Section 69Section 69B

Gurcharan Singh, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1), Ludhiana

In the result, for statistical purposes, all the above appeals are treated as allowed

ITA 643/CHANDI/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 1Section 148Section 271

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

Gurcharan Singh, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1) Ludhiana, Ludhiana

In the result, for statistical purposes, all the above appeals are treated as allowed

ITA 642/CHANDI/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 1Section 148Section 271

Gurcharan Singh, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1) Ludhiana, Ludhiana

In the result, for statistical purposes, all the above appeals are treated as allowed

ITA 641/CHANDI/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 1Section 148Section 271