“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

Appaso Sampatrao Mane, Pune vs. ITO Ward 7(1), Pune

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

ITA 1006/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194Section 69

Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi ["CIT(A)"/"NFAC"] pertaining to Assessment Year ("AY") 2016-17. 2. It is a case of an ex-parte assessment under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the "Act"). For AY 2016-17, the assessee did not file his return of income

Aash Mohd, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Appellant is partly allowed for

ITA 3060/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 144Section 144B

condone the delay of 95days in filing the present Appeal. 5. Brief facts of the case are that, an ex-parte assessment order dated 20/12/2022 came to be passed u/s 144 read with Section144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by making certain additions. The Assessee preferred

Pooja Dipen Shah, Jamnagar vs. ITO, Ward-2(6), Jamnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 526/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Ld. Sr-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

complying with the notices subsequently issued and since the ssment was made under sec.143(3) of the Act and it was not an ex-parte assessment under sec. 144 of the Act, the Assessing Officer should not have levied penalty under sec.271(1)(b) of the Act. He placed reliance

Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, Dhanbad vs. ITO, Dhanbad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 103/RAN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi24 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan(Through Hybrid Mode) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Ran/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-2017) Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Dhanbad Manaitand, Dhanbad Jharkhand स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aitpj 3446 Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr

appeal of the 3 assessee before the first appellate authority. A perusal of the assessment order also shows that it is an ex-parte assessment order. Even before the ld. CIT(A) no details have been filed, which clearly shows that the assessee is not serious in pursuing his appeal

Ramendra Singh, Kannauj vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(2)(3), Kannauj

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

ITA 53/ALLD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Ramendra Singh V. The Income Tax Officer Bahadurpur Ward 4(2)(3) Majhigawan Kannauj Kannauj (U.P) Tan/Pan:Gzqps7971P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shvetank Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.07.2023, 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 The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That Huge Amounts Have Been Credited To The Assessee’S Bank Account No.001311002103008 Maintained With Farrukhabad District Central Co-Operative Bank, Saurikh, Kannauj By Way Of Cash & Credit Entries. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued Notice Under Section 142(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’), Requiring The Assessee To Furnish The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. However, The Said Notice Was

For Appellant: Shri Shvetank Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R

Section 115BSection 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69ASection 80T

Expected & Agricultural Income 72,910/- Thus there was no other Income which from mandatory taxability creating for filing ITR. 3. Section 144/142(1) (ex-Parte assessment order pass out) ITA No.53/ALLD/2025 Page 4 of 7 That the service of time notice u/s 142 (1) the assesses was not present

Ram Kumar Maurya, Bhadohi vs. ITO, Ward - 1(5), Bhadohi

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

ITA 140/ALLD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Ram Kumar Maurya V. The Income Tax Officer Parkritkar Khamaria Ward 1(5) Bhadohi (U.P) Bhadohi Tan/Pan:Babpm1314H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Bansal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.07.2024, Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-6, Kolkata For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. On The Basis Of The Information In Possession Of The Income Tax Department That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits To The Tune Of Rs.12,84,330/- In His Saving Bank Account No.28260100004067 Maintained With Bank Of Baroda, Khamaria Branch, Bhadohi, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act. In Response To The Statutory Notice Issued By The Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 282Section 69

having been left out from consideration by the ld. Assessing Officer, entire addition of Rs.14,62,770/- made by him while passing the ex-parte assessment order dated 24.12.2019 as also affirmed by the ex- parte impugned appellate authority order dated 22.07.2024 under section 250 of the Act. 4. BECAUSE

Sandeep Kumar Pandey, Handia vs. Income Tax Officer - 1(3), Prayagraj

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

ITA 136/ALLD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2019-20 Sandeep Kumar Pandey V. The Income Tax Officer 1(3) 012, Saitapur, Barethi Allahabad Handia, Allahabad (U.P) Tan/Pan:Blapp5054M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Singh, C.A. Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.05.2025, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2019- 20. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed The 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.12,27,477/- In Bank Account No.0369000112307099 Maintained With Punjab National Bank & Of Rs.86,000/- In Bank Account Maintained With Bank Of Baroda During The Year Under Consideration. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 69A

such deposits pertained to such a business; (6) ld. "CIT(A)" has erred in law and facts in upholding the validity of Ex-Parte Assessment Order passed by ld. Assessing Officer under section 144 without considering the fact that Id. Assessing Officer had not considered the Bank Statements on record

Sourabh Sharma, Indore vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi, Delhi

The appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 342/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 253

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

Rupal Devang Naik, Na vs. Arivs.ITO, Ward-4, Navsari

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

ITA 1058/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Buayananda Prusethaie Vardiet F./Ita No.1058/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2012-13)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 48Section 50C

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BUAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT

Touch Tone Teleservices, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-4(1), Hyderabad

ITA 987/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 987/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Touch Tone Teleservices, Vs. Income Tax Officer, H. No. 3-6-550/4, 1St Floor, Ward-4(1), Street No.7, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aacft5196N (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Sri Gurpreet Singh, Sr.Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 19/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Firm Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 27/02/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 27/12/2019. The Assessee Firm Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Gurpreet Singh, Sr.AR

Section 114Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Manjunatha G., Accountant

Shrolenson Marbaniang, Shillong, Meghalaya vs. ITO W-2 Shillong, Shillong, Meghalaya

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 225/GTY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: And Therefore Notice Issued In The Name Of The Dissolved Assessee Could Not Be Served & Hence As Ex-Parte Assessment Order As Well As Appellate Order. The Ld. Ar Also Referred To The Order Passed By Cit(A) U/S 250 Of The Act Dated 22.05.2025 & Submitted That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal In Limine Without Deciding The Issues On Merit Which Is In Violation Of Section 250(6) Of The Act. The Ld. Counsel

Section 250Section 250(6)

assessee was dissolved long before and therefore notice issued in the name of the dissolved assessee could not be served and hence as ex-parte assessment order as well as appellate order. The Ld. AR also referred to the order passed by CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act dated ... find that the impugned assessee was a firm and had been dissolved and therefore, the notice of hearing was not served. Hence the ex-parte assessment by AO. Similarly, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine when the assessee failed to respond on the appointed date of hearings

Income Tax Officer, Lower Parel vs. Bhavani Balasubramaniam Iyer, Mumbai

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

ITA 2933/MUM/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Yagnesh DesaiFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 69

notices issued by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings and which has in turn resulted in passing of the ex-parte assessment order. 6. It was further submitted that for the aforesaid reasons, during the appellate proceedings, the assessee moved an application for submitting additional evidence and submitted

Income Tax Officer, Pirmal Chamber, Lower Parel vs. Bhavani Balasubramaniam Iyer, Mumbai

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

ITA 2932/MUM/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Yagnesh DesaiFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 69

Bhavani Lyer, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(1)(1)A, Mumbai

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

ITA 2777/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Yagnesh DesaiFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 69

Naganna L/R for Late Rangegowda, Hassan vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hassan

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

ITA 267/BANG/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

ITA No.267/Bang/2025 Rangegowda (Deceased) LR Naganna, Hassan IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

The Gharthoon Agri Cultural Service Society, Kangra, Himachal Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - Palampur, Himachal Pradesh, Palampur

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 928/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary, Sr.DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

assessment year 2015-16. The assessee did not appear in response to the notice issued by the AO, accordingly, an ex-parte assessment order was passed on 05.01.2024. The copy of this notice u/s 148 is available on page No. 36 of the Paper Book. 4. Dissatisfied with the assessment

The Gharthoon Agri Cultural Services Society, Kangra, Himachal Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - Palampur, Himachal Pradesh, Palampur

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 927/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.925 To 928/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary, Sr.DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

The Gharthoon Agri Cultural Services Society, Palampur, Himachal Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - Palampur, Himachal Pradesh, Palampur

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 926/CHANDI/2025[2015-16 ]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary, Sr.DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

The Gharthoon Agri Cultural Services Society, Kangra, Himachal Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - Palampur, Himachal Pradesh, Palampur

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 925/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary, Sr.DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Sikander Daredia, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 604/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.604/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2018-2019 The Asst. Commissioner Of Sikander Daredia, Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad – 500 014. Vs. Hyderabad – 500 004. Pan Agtpd5466A (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By : Sri S. Rama Rao, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12.11.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 56(2)(x)Section 69

case as the assessee never produced any books of account before the AO. vii. The CIT(A) ought to have set-aside the ex-parte assessment to the file of the AO as the remand report did not certify the maintenance of books of account, accountability of the transactions therein