“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

Nsk Builders, Trichy vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Trichy

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 45/CHNY/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 144

allowed by AO at 15%. Even, it is noticed that the assessee failed to appear despite many opportunities and in absence of assessee, ex-parte assessment was framed by AO by allowing depreciation @ 15% instead of 30% claimed by assessee. We noted that neither

ACIT Circle 3(1), Trichy vs. N.S.K.Builders, Trichy

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1415/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 144

Nilofar Jalal Lakhan, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assellment Centre 2 (1) Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2393/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Nilofar Jalal Lakhan, National Faceless Assessment Crescent Bay, Tower 6, Flat No. Centre Dcit 2(1), Delhi. 3904, Jerbai Wadia Road, Vs. Bhoiwada, Parel, Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Afvpj 9774 L Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. V.C. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Chetan M. Kacha, Dr : Date Of Hearing 21/11/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 25/11/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. V.C. Shah, AR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

also ex We find that in the instant case before us also ex We find that in the instant case before us also ex-parte assessment has been completed against the assessee due to non- assessment has been completed against the assessee due to non assessment has been completed against

Sekar Devi, Madurai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward-2(1), Madurai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1592/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1591 & 1592/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 Smt. Sekar Devi, The Income Tax Officer, 16-C/2, Nadar Vidyasala Street, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 2(1), South Veli Street, Madurai. Madurai – 1. Pan: Aempd 9173M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P.M. Senthil Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16.11.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: These Appeals By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Different Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Madurai In Ita No.0104/2016-17 & 0076/2015-16 Both Dated 05.04.2019. The Assessments Were Framed By The Ito, Non-Corporate Ward 2(1), Madurai For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2009-10 U/S.144 R.W.S 147 & U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Orders Dated 13.06.2016 & 30.03.2015. 2. The Common Issue In Both The Appeals Of The Assessee Is That The Lower Authorities I.E., The Cit(A) As Well As The Ao Passed Order Without Assigning Any Proper Reasons & Justification & The Ao Framed Assessment Ex-Parte U/S.144 Of The Act In Assessment Year 2008-09 & The Cit(A) In Both The Years Has Dismissed The Appeals Of Assessee Without Deliberating On The Merits Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.M. Senthil Kumar, JCIT

Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

opening capital of Rs.30,24,865/- but the AO has not provided reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and framed ex-parte assessment order u/s.144 of the Act and the relevant findings given by AO in assessment year 2008-09 reads as under:- “AS there was no response

Sekar Devi, Madurai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward-2(1), Madurai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1591/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.M. Senthil Kumar, JCIT

Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

Jigana, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(5), Bengaluru

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

ITA 535/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 115BSection 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234ASection 69A

sustained by the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessment in this case was done u/s 144 of the Act i.e. Ex-parte assessment order and the Ld. CIT(A) has also not given fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee and the assessee was not able

Shri. Hajaram P Purohit, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 36, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 7638/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

assessment and appeals as a result of which in several cases, Shri Hajaram P. Purohit A.Y. 2008–09, 2009–10, 2010–11 ex-parte assessments came to be made or the appeals came to be dismissed ex-parte. f. I am also faced with huge recovery pressures and extreme coercive

Shri. Hajaram P Purohit, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 36, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 7637/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Shri. Hajaram P Purohit, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 36, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 7636/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Dlh Kamla Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC- 3(4), Mumbai

ITA 1373/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1373 & 1374/Mum/2019 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dcit Cen. Cir. -3(4), Dlh Kamla Developers 19Th Floor, Air India Ground Floor, Shanti बनाम/ Vimal, P. M. Road, Vile Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Parle East, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 057 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aahfd0790K (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri T. Shankar, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 22.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 22.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 24.12.2018, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-51, Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3)/153A For Ay 2013-14 & Section 143(3) For Ay 2014-15. 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar, Ld. DR

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

accounts of real estate developers. 8. AO also issued show cause notice and provided various opportunities to the assessee as to why an ex-parte assessment u/s 144 should not be made to which assessee did not responded. Thereafter, Ld. AO had made additions after observing as under:- 8 I.T.A

Sri. Subhasa Poojari, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(3), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 378/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Subhasa Poojari, Vs. Ito, Old No.6, New No.18/2, Ward – 1(2)(3), Dodda Kattappa Road, Ulsoor, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 008. Pan : Ehrps 6826 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Chythanya V. Mudrabettu, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.08.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Chythanya V. Mudrabettu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 115BSection 144Section 69A

these notices. These have set out in para 4 of the Order of Assessment. The AO finally proceeded to frame an ex-parte assessment under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). The AO noticed that the assessee had a bank account in Canara Bank, Account No.0647101057607 According

M/S. Iryd Automatrix Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(1)(4), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 314/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Iryd Automatrix Pvt. Ltd., Ito, Vs. No.13/1, 4Th Floor, Ward – 3(1)(4), Sukruthi Apartment, Bengaluru. Subbaramachetty Road, Bengaluru – 560 004. Pan : Aadci 9051 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Hemant Pai, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 14.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.06.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Hemant Pai, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 144Section 68

Rs.10 lakhs respectively. In the proceedings before the AO, the assessee did not respond to any of the notices and therefore an ex-parte assessment under section 144 of the Act. i.e., a best judgment assessment was made by the AO. The AO treated the credits in question as unexplained

M/S Poddar Finin Consultancy P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-7(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1860/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1860/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Poddar Finin Consultancy बिधम/ Ito Ward Pvt. Ltd. Maharashtra-410206. Vs. 4A/B, Ground Floor, Tk Industries Estate, Sitaram Palturam Murai Marg, Mumbai- 400015. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcp3938D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri R. A. Dhyani (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 06.08.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Thane [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1) The Assessment Order Passed By The Id. Assessing Officer (Ao) Is Invalid & Bad In Law. 2) (A) The Id. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Assessing Officer

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani (Sr. AR)

Section 143(2)Section 35DSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

notice 3 29.10.2014 142(1) notice 4 12.01.2015 142(1) notice 5 30.01.2015 Letter seeking explanation 6 13.02.2015 Show cause for ex-parte assessment 7 19.02.2015 This is an adjournment date. Substantiation of premium sought 8 03.03.2015 This is an adjourned date; Unauthorized person had attended without details required ... present Act but the principles that emerge are equally applicable to the provisions in the present Act in relation to an ex-parte assessment order. The facts as reported in the order of High Court are as under: - “The ITO came to know that the assessee received certain amount

M/S. Shree Naurang Godavari Entertainment Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT-16(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 989/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: The Ld Cit(A) - 4, Mumbai Thereby Denying The Appellant An Opportunity & Natural Justice. 2. The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs 13,56, 45,767/-U/S Section 68 Of The I. T Act, 1961 Of Unsecured Loans Received By The Company & Remaining Outstanding Made By The Ld Ao Who Had Not Considered Part Details Produced Before Him. The Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Same Without Giving Proper Opportunity Thereby Denying The Appellant Natural Justice. The Ld Ao May Be Directed To Delete The Same. Assessment Year 2013-14 Page 2 Of 3

Section 143(3)Section 68

appearance before the authorities below, in such circumstances, cannot be put against the assessee so as to confirm the impugned additions and this ex-parte assessment. We have also noted that the assessee has now filed certain balance confirmations which were not available to the assessee in view

Om Prakash Jakhotia, Telangna vs. ACIT, CC-26, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 971/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 292C

does not reflect the trappings of an ex-parte order under section 144 in as much as, no show cause notice for an ex-parte assessment proceedings, etc. has been given. 4. Your Honour will appreciate that the procedure and consequences of an order under section 143(3) and under

Om Prakash Jakhotia, Telangna vs. ACIT, CC-26, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 970/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 292C

Om Prakash Jakhotia, Telangna vs. ACIT, CC-26, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 969/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 292C

Om Prakash Jakhotia, Telangna vs. ACIT, CC-26, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 968/DEL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 292C

Hari Ram Verma, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-62(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 858/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Hari Ram Verma, Vs Ito, Rz-561/1, Gali No.01, Ward-62(4), Sadh Nagar, Palam, Delhi-110045. New Delhi. Pan-Aatpv9486A Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 27.12.2021

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148

applied for deactivation of PAN AATFV948M. He has also declared interest income of Rs.57428/- in his return filed under the PAN ACAPV8292K the ex-parte assessment order made by the AO is not justified. 7.2.5 It is obvious from the details above that the appellant has received contract receipts

Arti Chadha & Puja Chadha, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4871/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 4871/Del/2014 (A.Y 2005-06) (Through Video Conferencing) Vs Acit Arti Chadha & Puja Chadha (In Their Capacity As Members Of Central Circle-21 The Huf Known As Mohan Lal New Delhi Chadha & Sons (Huf) 23/10A, Moti Nagar New Delhi Aaahc1800L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153C

dated, no one attended personally nor filed any letter seeking adjournment of the case. The Assessing Officer proceeded u/s 144 of the Act ex-parte assessment and thereby vide order dated 30/12/2010 made addition of Rs. 2,54,311/- towards the trading resolutions as well