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

Janta Construction Co., Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 861/JPR/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl.CIT)
Section 145(3)

…ormity with past history of assessee. In assessee’s own case 8% N.P. applied subject to depreciation interest on capital and remuneration to partners. The ld AR relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Gotan Lime Khaniz Udyog 256 ITR 243 for the proposition that mere rejection of books of account should not necessarily lead to an addition. The Assessing Officer without having any material in his possession and without bringing anything contrary on record through independent enquiries, additions were made arbitrarily only to increase the NP rate. The ld AR also submitted that…

ACIT, Jaipur vs. Nirmal Glasstech Industries, Jaipur

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the assessee’s

ITA 963/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Apr 2017AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl.CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 80I

…ich was achieved by reducing the selling price and giving more discount. Accordingly, it was held that the G.P. rate declared by the assessee could not be disturbed in the absence of any specific defect in the books of accounts. CIT V. Gotan Lime Khaniz Udyog 256 ITR 243 (Raj.) Mere rejection of books of accounts by resorting to section 145 did not necessarily lead to the addition to the returned income or a different figure of income. Hence simply because section 145 is applicable should not be acriteria for making trading addition more particularly whenpurchases and sales are fully vouched and no discrepancies…

ACIT, Kota vs. Himmatram Juharmal Sarraf, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1058/JPR/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Mar 2017AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal(CA)For Respondent: Shri Prakash Meena(JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 40A(2)(b)

…the order of ld. CIT(A) and also placed reliance on the following case laws: (1) PCIT vs. Bhawani Silicate Industries (2016) 236 Taxman 596 (Raj.) (HC) (2) Malani Ramjivan Jagannath Vs. ACIT 316 ITR 120/207 CTR 19 (Raj. (3) CIT V. Gotan Lime Khaniz Udyog 256 ITR 243 (Raj.) (4) Pr. CIT Vs. Hues India Ltd. 2015-TIOL-2275 (RaJ.) dt. 30-07-2015 (5) ITO vs. Swastik Udyog 29 CCH 829 (Jaipur) (Trib.) 3 M/s Himmatram Juharmal Sarraf. (6) Prem Cables (P) Ltd. Vs. Asstt. CIT 56 ITD 382 (JP). (7) CIT Vs. Smt. Poonam Rani 326 ITR 223/41 DTR 194 (Del.) (2010) (8) CIT Vs. Saatal Kattha & Chemical (P.) Ltd. 296 ITR 1…

ACIT, Jaipur vs. M/S Euro Jewels, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue as well as of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 244/JPR/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Mar 2017AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Shri N.K. Baid (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(3)Section 268A

…ng a sump sum trading addition of Rs. 50,000/- when no lsuch estimation was required to be made by him. 1.1. That the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) having followed the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Gotan Khanij Udyog (256 ITR 243), he having been satisfied that no addition u/s 143(3) as such cannot be made but still chose to sustain an addition of Rs. 50,000/- which is unjustified, bad in law, without evidence, contrary to the material on record and deserves to be deleted. 2. That the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is correct and justified in deleting the Tradi…

Galaxy Impex, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

In the result, the disallowance made

ITA 529/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2017AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Prithivi Raj Meena (Add. CIT)
Section 145(3)

…ted that even invoking of Sec. 145 does not confer blind powers upon the AO and he is not at liberty to assess the income at whatever figure he wants. He is bound to make an honest estimation of income. In the case of CIT vs. Gotan Lime Khaniz Udyog (2002) 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. However, it will appear that in the present case, the ld. AO has not made a fair estimation in conformity of the above settled judicial guideline. It is not denied that the assessee was engaged in the business of manu…

Mohd. Const. Co., Kota vs. Addl. CIT, Kota

ITA 649/JPR/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jan 2017AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Jha (Addl. CIT)
Section 145(3)Section 44A

…the present case, the ld. Lower authorities have not made a fair estimation in conformity of the above settled judicial guideline. It was submitted that the addition need not be made even if Sec. 145 is invoked. In the case of CIT v/s 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 the…

Delight Engineers, Noida vs. Income Tax Officer, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 2467/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Singhal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR

…The past history of the case of the assessee has to be the basis for proper estimation of profits. 5. The assessee has rightly relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gotan Lime Khanij Udhyog, 256 ITR 243 (Raj) wherein it is held as follows:- “Therefore, merely because there is some deficiency in the books of account or merely because of rejection of books of account it does not mean that it must lead necessarily to additions in the returned income of the assessee.” 6. Keeping in view the facts of the case, I am of the considered opinion that th…

Rambir Singh Chauhan, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed in the manner as indicated above

ITA 2536/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Ms. Lalitha Krishnamurthy, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Susan D. George, Sr. DR
Section 44ASection 69

…above, AO cannot resort to estimation of GP/NP unless: (i) Some defect is pointed out in the books. (ii) Books of account are rejected. (iii) Bogus expenditure is pointed out in the books of account. The ld. AR placed reliance on the following case laws: (i) 256 ITR 243, 244 Gotan lime Khanij Udyog (Raj) (ii) 332 ITR 540 Bindal Apparels. (iii) 10 taxmann.com 74 Vishwanath Prasad (Jabalpur). In view of the above the ld. AR prayed that the addition of Rs.4,33,533/- was unsustainable on facts and law. 7. Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the ld. CIT(A) was just…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.Kakinada Co-operative Town Bank Limited

ITTA/571/2011HC Telangana28 Feb 2012

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO