CIT v. Gotan Lime Khaniz Udyog

256 ITR 243High Court2002#1266 most cited

What is CIT v. Gotan Lime Khaniz Udyog authority for?

The mere rejection of an assessee's books of account under Section 145(3) does not automatically warrant an addition to the returned income. The Assessing Officer must consider the books alongside historical data and other collected material after confronting the taxpayer.

89

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Gotan Lime Khaniz Udyog · 256 ITR 243 · Section 145(3) · rejection of books of account · addition to income · estimation of income · onus of proof · trade creditors

Sections most often in play

Section 145(3)Section 144Section 143(3)Section 68Section 250Section 144BSection 153ASection 153D

Issues it is cited on

section 69dsection 155bbesection 2(9)section 66trade creditorsrejection of books of accountsection 158bbsection 69bsection 145(3)onus of proofsection 145section 153a(1)(b)

Judgments citing CIT v. Gotan Lime Khaniz Udyog

Mohanaa Ganesh, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Non-Corp.Ward 3(3), Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partially allowed

ITA 951/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Mohana Ganesh, V. Non Corporate Ward 3(3), 11/8 A, C Block, Shibiraj Coimbatore. Niraivagam, Rajendra Nagar Extension, Narasimnaicken Palayam, Coimbatore – 641 031. [Pan: Akspm-2291-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 44ASection 69A

…T(A) that even though the Assessing Officer estimated the income of the assessee @8%, it was high and unreasonable and pleaded that, it has to be reasonable as held by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs Gotan Lime Khanij Udhyog reported in 256 ITR 243, wherein their lordship have held that past history of the case also needs to be considered while estimating the income of the assessee. The assessee also submitted the earlier three years financials/audited books would show that the average net profit was only 1.55% as against the 8% as computed by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, assessee plea…

Girdhari Lal Meena, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

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

ITA 118/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Gogra (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) a
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144(1)

…s that when proper books of account along with duly audited by Form 3CD, requisite details are before Ld. AO then there is no justification for rejecting the books of account and making estimated addition on gross profit:- (a) CIT vs. Gotan Lime Khanij Udyog, 256 ITR 243 (Raj. High Court) (b) Ajay Goyal vs. ITO, 99 TTJ 164 (copy of judgments are attached) Thus when there is no basis with both the lower authorities in doing GP addition and under these circumstances action of Ld AO and Ld CIT(A) may please be held erroneous and GP addition made may please be deleted. GROUND NO.3 : ERRONEOUSLY APPLYING PROVISION OF…

Kunan Mal Kalu Ram Jain and Company, Tonk vs. ITO, Tonk

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 70/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.) &For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 234DSection 5

…d the law mandates the AO to make a fair estimation providing cogent grounds however, in this case AO is completely silent as to why he adapted 4% NP rate for which there is absolutely no material made available. In the case of CIT vs. Gotan Lime Khaniz Udyog 256 ITR 243 (Raj), it has been held that mere rejection of books of accounts need not necessarily lead to additions to the returned income. It was also held that the books of account , together with past history of the case as also material collected by the AO ( of course, after confronting the assessee) should be considered for estimation of income. In view…

DCIT, CC-2, Jaipur vs. Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and that of the revenue is also stands dismissed

ITA 181/JPR/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 112 /JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 cuke Sh. Jitendra Kumar Agarwal Dy. Commissioner of Vs. 1756, Telipada, SMS Highway Income-Tax Jaipur Central Circle-02, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AEDPA 0732 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 181/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment…

DCIT, CC-2, Jaipur vs. Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

ITA 180/JPR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

…it is submitted that it is not necessary that in all cases where the books of 3accounts of the assessee are rejected, an addition to the returned income has to be made. In this regard, jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gotam Lime Khanij Udhyog 256 ITR 243 (Raj) held that Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, only provides the basis on which computation of income is to be made for the purpose of determining the amount of tax. The provision by itself does not deal with addition or deletion to the income. Therefore, mere rejection of, or some deficiency in, the books of account would not mean that…

DCIT, CC-2, Jaipur vs. Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

ITA 179/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

…it is submitted that it is not necessary that in all cases where the books of 3accounts of the assessee are rejected, an addition to the returned income has to be made. In this regard, jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gotam Lime Khanij Udhyog 256 ITR 243 (Raj) held that Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, only provides the basis on which computation of income is to be made for the purpose of determining the amount of tax. The provision by itself does not deal with addition or deletion to the income. Therefore, mere rejection of, or some deficiency in, the books of account would not mean that…

DCIT, CC-2, Jaipur vs. Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

ITA 178/JPR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

…it is submitted that it is not necessary that in all cases where the books of 3accounts of the assessee are rejected, an addition to the returned income has to be made. In this regard, jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gotam Lime Khanij Udhyog 256 ITR 243 (Raj) held that Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, only provides the basis on which computation of income is to be made for the purpose of determining the amount of tax. The provision by itself does not deal with addition or deletion to the income. Therefore, mere rejection of, or some deficiency in, the books of account would not mean that…

DCIT, CC-2, Jaipur vs. M/S. Royal Jewellers, Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 177/JPR/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

…istinguishable. As regards, argument of ld. CIT DR is concerned, that since books have been rejected trading addition made by AO should be confirmed, it is useful to refer to the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Gotan Lime Khanij Udyog 256 ITR 243 (Raj.) wherein Hon’ble Court has held that it is not necessary that in every case of rejection of books of accounts, trading addition has to be necessarily made. Trading addition has to be made on reasoned and rational basis considering the facts and, in the circumstances, as well as past history of the case. Thus, as discussed above estimatio…

DCIT, CC-2, Jaipur vs. M/S. Royal Jewellers, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 176/JPR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal(CIT)&
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ]U;kf;d lnL; ,o aJh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ]ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos.113 to 115/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years :2014-15 to 2016-17 cuke M/s Royal Jewellers, The Dy. Commissioner of Vs. 1756, Telipara, Chaura Rasta, Income-tax, Jaipur Central Circle-02, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAEFR 6642 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos.174 to 176/JP/2020 fu…

DCIT, CC-2, Jaipur vs. M/S. Royal Jewellers, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 175/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal(CIT)&
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ]U;kf;d lnL; ,o aJh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ]ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos.113 to 115/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years :2014-15 to 2016-17 cuke M/s Royal Jewellers, The Dy. Commissioner of Vs. 1756, Telipara, Chaura Rasta, Income-tax, Jaipur Central Circle-02, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAEFR 6642 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos.174 to 176/JP/2020 fu…

DCIT, CC-2, Jaipur vs. M/S. Royal Jewellers, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 174/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal(CIT)&
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ]U;kf;d lnL; ,o aJh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ]ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos.113 to 115/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years :2014-15 to 2016-17 cuke M/s Royal Jewellers, The Dy. Commissioner of Vs. 1756, Telipara, Chaura Rasta, Income-tax, Jaipur Central Circle-02, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAEFR 6642 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos.174 to 176/JP/2020 fu…

M/S. Royal Jewellers, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 116/JPR/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

…istinguishable. As regards, argument of ld. CIT DR is concerned, that since books have been rejected trading addition made by AO should be confirmed, it is useful to refer to the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Gotan Lime Khanij Udyog 256 ITR 243 (Raj.) wherein Hon’ble Court has held that it is not necessary that in every case of rejection of books of accounts, trading addition has to be necessarily made. Trading addition has to be made on reasoned and rational basis considering the facts and, in the circumstances, as well as past history of the case. Thus, as discussed above estimatio…

M/S. Royal Jewellers, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 115/JPR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal(CIT)&
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ]U;kf;d lnL; ,o aJh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ]ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos.113 to 115/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years :2014-15 to 2016-17 cuke M/s Royal Jewellers, The Dy. Commissioner of Vs. 1756, Telipara, Chaura Rasta, Income-tax, Jaipur Central Circle-02, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAEFR 6642 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos.174 to 176/JP/2020 fu…

M/S. Royal Jewellers, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 114/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal(CIT)&
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ]U;kf;d lnL; ,o aJh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ]ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos.113 to 115/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years :2014-15 to 2016-17 cuke M/s Royal Jewellers, The Dy. Commissioner of Vs. 1756, Telipara, Chaura Rasta, Income-tax, Jaipur Central Circle-02, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAEFR 6642 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos.174 to 176/JP/2020 fu…

M/S. Royal Jewellers, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 113/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal(CIT)&
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ]U;kf;d lnL; ,o aJh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ]ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos.113 to 115/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years :2014-15 to 2016-17 cuke M/s Royal Jewellers, The Dy. Commissioner of Vs. 1756, Telipara, Chaura Rasta, Income-tax, Jaipur Central Circle-02, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAEFR 6642 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos.174 to 176/JP/2020 fu…

Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and that of the revenue is also stands dismissed

ITA 112/JPR/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 112 /JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 cuke Sh. Jitendra Kumar Agarwal Dy. Commissioner of Vs. 1756, Telipada, SMS Highway Income-Tax Jaipur Central Circle-02, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AEDPA 0732 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 181/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment…

Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

ITA 111/JPR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

…it is submitted that it is not necessary that in all cases where the books of 3accounts of the assessee are rejected, an addition to the returned income has to be made. In this regard, jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gotam Lime Khanij Udhyog 256 ITR 243 (Raj) held that Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, only provides the basis on which computation of income is to be made for the purpose of determining the amount of tax. The provision by itself does not deal with addition or deletion to the income. Therefore, mere rejection of, or some deficiency in, the books of account would not mean that…

Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

ITA 110/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

…it is submitted that it is not necessary that in all cases where the books of 3accounts of the assessee are rejected, an addition to the returned income has to be made. In this regard, jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gotam Lime Khanij Udhyog 256 ITR 243 (Raj) held that Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, only provides the basis on which computation of income is to be made for the purpose of determining the amount of tax. The provision by itself does not deal with addition or deletion to the income. Therefore, mere rejection of, or some deficiency in, the books of account would not mean that…

Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

ITA 109/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

…it is submitted that it is not necessary that in all cases where the books of 3accounts of the assessee are rejected, an addition to the returned income has to be made. In this regard, jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gotam Lime Khanij Udhyog 256 ITR 243 (Raj) held that Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, only provides the basis on which computation of income is to be made for the purpose of determining the amount of tax. The provision by itself does not deal with addition or deletion to the income. Therefore, mere rejection of, or some deficiency in, the books of account would not mean that…

Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

ITA 108/JPR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

…it is submitted that it is not necessary that in all cases where the books of 3accounts of the assessee are rejected, an addition to the returned income has to be made. In this regard, jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gotam Lime Khanij Udhyog 256 ITR 243 (Raj) held that Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, only provides the basis on which computation of income is to be made for the purpose of determining the amount of tax. The provision by itself does not deal with addition or deletion to the income. Therefore, mere rejection of, or some deficiency in, the books of account would not mean that…