DEEPANSHU SRIVASTAVA,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had provided adequate opportunities to the assessee, who failed to furnish necessary documents and evidence. Consequently, the AO rightly rejected the books of accounts under Section 145(3) and estimated the gross profit.
What were the facts?
The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny due to purchases from non-filers or suppliers with low turnover. The assessee failed to provide details of purchases, confirmations, or payment proofs, and also showed discrepancies in balance sheet figures and non-maintenance of stock registers.
What were the issues?
Whether the rejection of books of accounts and estimation of income by the AO was justified due to the assessee's failure to provide supporting evidence for purchases and other financial discrepancies.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 142(1),Section 133(6),Section 145(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Addl. CIT v. Jay Engineering Works Ltd.92 citing113 ITR 389 · 1978 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI
Before: Ms. MADHUMITA ROY & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA
PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JM:
The instant appeals, filed by the assessee, are directed against the separate orders dated 03.04.2025 & 25.04.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), arising out of the assessment orders dated 19.09.2019 & 23.12.2022 for AYs 2017-18 & 2021-22 respectively.
Since both the matters relate to the same assessee, these are heard analogously and are being disposed of by a common order.
ITA No.4064/Del/2025 - AY 2021-22:
The assessee has raised th
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 144B
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Mohammed Javed Bhati, Sikar vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, SikarITA 994/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2125/AHD/2026[2019-2020]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-2020
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2124/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Das vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Superwealth Financial Enterprises Private Limited, Khordha vs. Joint Commissioner Good And Service Tax Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Simanchal Sahoo vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Prafulla Chandra Khatua, Mayurbhanj vs. The State Tax Officer Of CT And GST, MayurbhanjOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sidhivinayak Roadways, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise, Rourkela Commissionerate, RourkelaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026