“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

Income Tax Officer, Civic Centre, New Delhi vs. Naveen Arora, Lajpat Nagar, Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3251/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 144Section 172Section 195Section 69ASection 69C

agents for International freight forwarding. The name of the proprietorship concern of the assessee Pawansoot Freight Solutions. The Assessment Year 2017-18, an ex-parte assessment order u/s.144 was passed by the Assessing Officer on 17.12.2018. In such order two additions were made by the Assessing Officer. The first being

Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2 (1), Varanasi vs. Prominent Datamatics Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Varanasi

ITA 135/VNS/2020[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi05 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 124(1)(a)Section 124(2)Section 124(3)(a)Section 250(1)Section 255(4)Section 69A

case was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 14.08.2018. The ld. AO has passed an ex-parte assessment order u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act on 26.11.2019. In other words, it was an order passed according to the best of judgement ... proceedings . The ITO, Ward 5(2), Kolkatta issued several notices and SCNs to the assessee, but none stood replied by the assessee. An ex-parte assessment order was passed by the AO u/s 144 of the 1961 Act, on 26.11.2019. The digital signatures were affixed

George Molakal Mathew, Pune vs. ITO International Tax Ward-3, Pune

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

ITA 2236/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: or during the hearing of the Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 3

/NFAC. After considering the statement of facts, grounds of appeal and written submissions, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC set-aside the ex-parte assessment order and remanded the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for making a fresh assessment. 5. It is the above order against which

Vivek Trivedi, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 42(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 5533/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Ramchandran,ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 249Section 69A

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT

Ashish Kumar, Shravasti vs. ITO-1, Bahraich

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

ITA 736/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Ashish Kumar V. The Ito-1 S/O Onkar Nath, Bardehra Bahraich Bharigan, Pathpur, Ekauna Shravasti (U.P) Tan/Pan:Deqpk8563B (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Raghunath Mishra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.01.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits Of Rs.11,50,000/- In His Bank Account No.4666020000005 Maintained With Bank Of Baroda, Bahraich, During The Demonetization Period. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice To The Assessee Under Section 148 Of The Act. However, There Was No Response From The Side Of The Assessee To The Notice Issued Under

For Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

justice therefore liable to be set-aside. 3. Because the addition of Rs.11,50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69 in ex-parte assessment u/s 144 is contrary to facts, law & circumstances of the case and liable to be deleted. 4. The appellant reserves its rights to amend

Hemmanahally Siddachari Nagamani, Mandya Karnataka vs. Income Tax Officer Ward1 & Tps Mandya, Mandya

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

ITA 1618/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18 Mrs. Hemmanahally Siddachari Nagamani, Near Sathygraha The Income Tax Soudha, Officer, B M Road, Ward – 1 & Tps, Shivapura Maddur, Mandya. Vs. Mandya Dt – 571 429. Pan: Abnpn7222R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N., JCIT-DR

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 156Section 234ASection 249Section 271ASection 69

weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Considering the fact that the assessment is also an ex-parte assessment, we deem it fit to remit the issue to the file of the AO for denovo consideration. The AO is directed to consider the issue afresh

Gopal Aggarwal, Faridabad vs. ITO(OSD) Faridabad, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2290/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Manish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 272A(1)(d)

various statutory notices (four in numbers) under section 142(1) reminded uncommunicated with the assessee and therefore, the Assessing Officer had passed the ex-parte assessment order under section i 44 of the Act. 2. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) in the facts of the case erred in not appreciating that ... being aggrieved with the ex-parte assessment order the assessee had filed appeal before the CIT(A) wherein one of the grounds raked up was against the ground concerns with lack of opportunity. 3. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) in the facts of the case while upholding the impugned penalty erred

Salim, Panipat vs. ITO, Ward-4, Panipat

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 5816/DEL/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69A

complied nor attended the proceedings thereafter. 3.3 As there was continued non-compliance, a show cause notice dated 08.11.2016 was issued proposing an ex-parte assessment under section 144, proposing additions towards unexplained cash deposit, interest income, and deposits made by third parties. The assessee failed to respond

Gajendra Singh, Vidisha vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 285/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 144Section 147Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

Pradeep Jaiswal, Sonkatch vs. ITO 1(2), Ind, Indore

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 568/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyaland**

Section 144Section 147Section 44ASection 69A

## आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण**,** इंदौर Ɋायपीठ**,** इंदौर **IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE** # **BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL

Anju Manish Gangar, Navi Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 28(1), Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 6677/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 144Section 250Section 253

case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi ["Ld. CIT (A)"] erred in confirming the ex-parte assessment order passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act"] by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 22(3), Mumbai ["the DCIT

Anju Manish Gangar, Navi Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 28(1), Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 6676/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 144Section 250Section 253

Anju Manish Gangar, Navi Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 22(3), Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 6675/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 144Section 250Section 253

Sanjay Gupta, Rourkela Odisha vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO() Gorakhpur

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

ITA 61/VNS/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi16 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Bench. 5. After hearing the learned Departmental Representative, and on perusal of records, it is found that the Assessing Officer passed ex-parte assessment order without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Further, the learned CIT(A) has not passed his order on merits. 6. In view of the foregoing

Takshashila Dhoraji Infrastructure, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1999/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 1999/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Takshashila Dhoraji The Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ Infrastructure, Income Tax, V/S. Takshashila House, Near Circle 2(1)(1), Krishna Baug Cross Road, Ahmedabad – 380 015 Maninagar, Ahmedabad – 380008 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aagft 6032 P (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) ()* यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Garg, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18 /09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/12/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg:

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Garg, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 250Section 69

However, due to the aforesaid reasons, there was no participation by the partners in the assessment proceedings resulting into the passing of ex-parte assessment order, making the impugned addition of Rs.1,64,00,000/- u/s.69 of the Act. Thereafter, with great difficulty, the partners arranged the finances

Pritam Shrikant Parvatkar, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle-12, Pune

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

ITA 2526/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2525 & 2526/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Pritam Shrikant Parvatkar, Vs. Dcit, Circle-12, Pune. 19, Jaydeo Nagar, Sinhgad Road, Pune- 411030. Pan : Abqpp3304F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Shri Vishvjeet Nagda Revenue By : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date Of Hearing : 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 08.08.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2526/Pun/2025 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi

Section 10Section 10(14)Section 147

Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. 7. Being aggrieved with the above ex-parte assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Since the appeal was furnished belatedly i.e. with a delay of 379 days and after considering ... Resident Indian (NRI). However, in the month of June 2024 when huge demand appeared on the portal the assessee became aware of the ex-parte assessment which was passed by the Assessing Officer and immediately appointed a consultant to file an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC with delay condonation

Pritam Shrikant Parvatkar, Pune vs. DCIT, Cir-12, Pune

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

ITA 2525/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi

Section 10Section 10(14)Section 147

Satvara Gnati Samaj Seva Mandal, Morbi vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Rajkot

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

ITA 436/RJT/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Shri Darshak Thakkar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN

Usha Yadav, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer Range 6(2), Lucknow

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

ITA 251/LKW/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow09 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 10(37)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 271(1)(c)

notices including notice issued under section 148 of the Act was never served on the appellant, hence she could not respond. Accordingly, ex-parte assessment order passed by Ld.AO is illegal, against the law of natural justice and without jurisdiction. 3. That as per ‘agreement to sell’ dated

Usha Yadav, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer Range 6(2), Lucknow

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

ITA 249/LKW/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow09 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 10(37)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 271(1)(c)