“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

Madhavi Beeravolu, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1460/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271ASection 69A

vide its order passed in ITA No. 1154/Hyd/2025, dated 29/10/2025 had after taking cognizance of the fact that the AO had passed an ex-parte assessment order, which thereafter had been upheld by the CIT(A), who had dismissed the assessee’s appeal on account of delay involved ... authorities below. We find that, admittedly, there Madhavi Beeravolu vs. ITO is no dispute between the parties that, the Assessing Officer has passed ex-parte assessment order and assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.1,00,91,053/- by making additions on account of sale of immovable property amounting

Madhavi Beeravolu, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1459/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271ASection 69A

Aditya Saini, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 6(2), Jpr, Jaipur

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

ITA 1571/JPR/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Nov 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1571/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Aditya Saini बनाम Income Tax Officer, 1211 B3 Barkat Nagar, Gandhi Vs. Ward 6(2), Jaipur Nagar, Jaipur अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: IFVPS8965E निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Sunil Morani, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख /

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Morani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 144

Assessment made without issuing proper notices or providing a reasonable opportunity is invalid. Violation of natural justice renders the ex-parte assessment liable to be quashed. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCHES, "SMC" JAIPUR IN ITA NO. 5/JP/2024 ASHISH JAIN VS ITO, WARD 1(3), JAIPUR in which

Cooperative Cane Development Union Ltd Balrampur, Balrampur vs. AO NFAC Delhi, NFAC New Delhi

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

ITA 629/LKW/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(3)Section 144B

learned CIT(A). In the course of appellate proceedings in ITAT learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer has passed ex-parte assessment order without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee and also, order has been passed by learned CIT(A) without providing reasonable opportunity

Manohar Waman Pandagale, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(3), Pune

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

ITA 1464/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Richa Gulati (Virtually)

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151ASection 45

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2015-16. 2. It is a case of an ex-parte assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”). The assessee is an individual

Vimalkumar Prakashchandra Jain, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1651/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Hence a notice u/s 148 was issued on 08-04-2022. The assessee partly response to the notice which has resulted in passing ex-parte assessment order and treating the introduction of share capital as unexplained and deemed income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act and demanded

Maya Kumari, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 581/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 69

against Rs.12,45,390/- originally returned by assessee. Assessee contended that no notice under section 148 was served upon assessee and ex-parte assessment was completed without serving any notice under section 148 till the completion of assessment which rendered the assessment order to be held void-ab-initio

Gen Singh, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-3(5), Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with directions as above

ITA 408/JODH/2023[2017-189]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2017-189

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar Gehlot, Addl. CIT DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

/NFAC, Delhi u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2017-18, arising out of the ex-parte assessment order dated 26.12.2019 passed u/s 144 by the ITO, Ward-3(5), Jodhpur. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer

Sangam Eanta Udyog, Pratapgarh vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed for statistical purposes

ITA 131/ALLD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 69A

return on 31/01/2023 declaring total income of Rs.1,11,510/-. The Assessing Officer processed the return filed by the assessee and passed ex-parte assessment order under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act on 08/03/2023 and made an addition of I.T.A. No.131/Alld/2025 Assessment Year

Mohammed Husain, Indore vs. Income-Tax Officer, 4(1), Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 761/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 69A

issued notices u/s 143(2)/142(1) to assessee but the assessee was not able to make compliances. Therefore, the AO completed ex-parte assessment u/s 144 year after making an addition of Rs. 1,23,12,389/- [total amount of deposits in bank a/cs

Moti Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Circle-4(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2243/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Raghav Rajeev MenonFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Mainivasagam, JCIT

Section 144

are stehe afteru, ‘sd =onite, dag! IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI Sf utel ulel &, sone ud

Madhavi Beeravolu, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(1), Signature Towers

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

ITA 1154/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

orders of the authorities below. We find that, admittedly, there is no dispute between the parties that, the Assessing Officer has passed ex-parte assessment order and assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.1,00,91,053/- by making additions on account of sale of immovable property amounting

Malay Dey, Alipurduar vs. A.O., Ward 2(3), Alipurduar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1055/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Oct 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rakesh Mishra, Am Assessing Officer, Malay Dey Assessment Unit, Arabindanagar (Beltala), Income Tax Department Alipurduar, P.O.& Dist. New Town, College Road, Vs. Alipurduar-736122 Alipurduar, Ward No.2(3), West Bengal P.O. & Dist. Alipurduar, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aiopd6705B

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Mukherjee, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, DR

required for filing details. The adjournment request is denied. 04. It was informed to the ld. AR that the assessment itself is ex-parte assessment and even before the ld. CIT (A) no representation has been made. Consequently, obviously no details can now be produced before the Tribunal

Mali Ram Yadav, Therkyo Ki Dhani vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1110/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1110/JPR/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Mali Ram Yadav Thekryo Ki Dhani, Village & Post: Jahota, Tehsil: Amer Distt: Jaipur 303 701 बनाम Vs. The ITO Ward - 7(2) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं. / PAN/GIR No.: ABJPY 6715A अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assesseeby : Shri Rakesh Kumar Kabra, CA Mrs. Prachela Kabra, CA राजस्व की ओर से /

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar Kabra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 69

although it is nowhere discussed in the order. 5. Improper Service of Notices by A) -That the learned AD erred in proceeding with ex-parte assessment under section 144 as the statutory notices u/s 148, 142(1), and 144 were either not served on the appellant OR served late, leaving ... comply within the given time frame. The principles of natural justice have been adhered to, and the appellant's non-compliance justifies the ex-parte assessment u/s 144, The onus of proving the genuineness of the loan transaction lies with the appellant. In the case of CIT vs P Mohanakala

Mamta Pathak, Thane vs. ITO Ward 1(2) Thane, Thane

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

ITA 3200/MUM/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2012-13 Mamta Pathak, Ito, Ward-1(2), 404, 4Th Floor, 6Th Floor, Shivam Apt., Vs. Ashar It Park Mohanji Sunderji Rd No.9, Wagale Estate, Raghunath Nagar, Thane, Thane, Maharashtra-400604. Maharashtra-400604. Pan : Alcpp3684Q (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Tanmay Phadke For Revenue : Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 15-10-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-10-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 07-03-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 192Section 69

submitted that when the said Chartered Accountant logged into the Income Tax portal of the assessee, he came to know about the ex-parte assessment and penalty proceedings. From a perusal of the portal, it was also observed that the AO did not issue any notice of demand

Sandeep Gujrati, Indore vs. ITO-5(1), Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 298/IND/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

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

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 48

notices u/s 142(1) but finding no or vague response from assessee, the AO noted non-compliant attitude of assessee and made ex-parte assessments u/s 144. The AO assessed entire sale consideration of Rs. 76,14,000/- as taxable capital gain. Before CIT(A) also, the assessee has remained

Shivam Multispeciality and Accident Care Centre Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Pune

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

ITA 696/PUN/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.696/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shivam Multispecialty & Accident Care Income Tax Officer, Centre Pvt. Ltd., Ward – 6(1), Pune Opp. Manali Resort, Near Dsk Dream City, Vs. Next To Loni Kalbhor Toll Naka, Pune-Solapur Mumbai Bypass Road, Fursungi, Pune-412308, Maharashtra Pan : Aapcs5482A अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Dhiraj Dandgaval Department By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 Date Of 27-10-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj DandgavalFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2017-18. 2. It is a case of ex-parte assessment under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”). The assessee filed its return of income on 01.05.2018 declaring total income of Rs.13

Shaila Omprakash Jethale, Pune vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1365/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1364 & 1365/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale

Section 133(6)Section 138Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

were already facing bad patch. The bad patch started somewhere in 2017, followed by Covid lockdown and still it is not completely recovered. Ex-parte assessment order 7. Because of all these circumstances the appellant could not attend assessment proceedings. The Ld. AO has passed the ex-parte order ... condoning the delay and also disposed of the appeals by not recording appropriate finding as per the law. Even though the appeals are ex-parte, assessments are ex-parte the Ld. CIT(A) has to dispose cases by passing speaking order. The comparison of both the orders

Shaila Omprakash Jethale, Pune vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1364/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1364 & 1365/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale

Section 133(6)Section 138Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

Sunil Bohra, Mumbai vs. Circle 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal and the appeal filed by the

ITA 5126/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C. V. Bhadang & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, (Sr.AR)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234A

issued for reopening of the assessment.During the reassessment proceedings, the assessee failed to explain the cash deposit of Rs.37,65,000/-resulting in ex-parte assessment and consequent addition of the above sum as Unexplained money.In the subsequent appellate proceedings,as observed by the ld.CIT(A) despite notices sent