Commissioner of Sales Tax v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali

90 ITR 271Supreme Court of India1973#380 most cited

What is Commissioner of Sales Tax v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali authority for?

The Supreme Court established principles for best judgment assessments, stating that some guesswork is inevitable but the assessment must be bona fide, rational, and free from bias or capriciousness. An appellate authority cannot substitute its judgment for that of the Assessing Officer unless the AO's assessment is shown to be biased, irrational, vindictive, or capricious, especially when the assessee fails to provide proper accounts or counter-evidence.

232

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali · best judgment assessment · rejection of books of account · Section 144 Income Tax Act · Section 145(3) Income Tax Act · appellate authority power · substitution of AO's judgment · rational basis assessment · estimation of income · assessee non-compliance · arbitrary or capricious assessment · bona fide estimate

Also reported as

32 STC 77

Sections most often in play

Section 148Section 132(4)Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 147Section 144Section 145(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 132(3)section 13(1)(c)section 131(1)section 13(1)section 132(4a)dumb documentssection 153a(1)(b)best judgment assessmentloose papersretracted statementrejection of books of accountsection 250(4)

Judgments citing Commissioner of Sales Tax v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali

Sama Narasimha Reddy and Sama Saraswathi Reddy Gardens, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2011-12 to AY

ITA 1335/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1332, 1333, 1334 &1335/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Sama Narasimha Reddy & Vs. Dcit, Sama Saraswathi Reddy Central Circle-1(2), Gardens, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aajfs7086H (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 16/02/2026 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 20/02/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)]-12, Hyderabad, Dated 15/07/2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (“A.Y”) 2011-12 & A.Y 2012-13 Respectively & Learned Cit(A)’S Orders Dated 04/07/2025, Pertaining To A.Y. 2013-14 & A.Y. 2014-15 Respectively. Since The Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Are Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 145Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250

…cer after considering the relevant facts has rightly estimated the suppressed turnover. The Ld. Sr. AR, further referring to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh vs. H.M. Esufail, H.M. Abdulali (1973) 90 ITR 271(SC) submitted that, if evidence is found for suppression of turnover for a part of the period, then the remaining part of the Financial Year estimation can be made however, the said estimation should be on the basis of scientific method and some guess work. Further, the Ld. Sr. AR referring to the net profit estimated by the learned CIT(A) submitt…

Sama Narasimha Reddy and Sama Saraswathi Reddy Gardens, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2011-12 to AY

ITA 1334/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1332, 1333, 1334 &1335/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Sama Narasimha Reddy & Vs. Dcit, Sama Saraswathi Reddy Central Circle-1(2), Gardens, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aajfs7086H (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 16/02/2026 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 20/02/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)]-12, Hyderabad, Dated 15/07/2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (“A.Y”) 2011-12 & A.Y 2012-13 Respectively & Learned Cit(A)’S Orders Dated 04/07/2025, Pertaining To A.Y. 2013-14 & A.Y. 2014-15 Respectively. Since The Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Are Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 145Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250

…cer after considering the relevant facts has rightly estimated the suppressed turnover. The Ld. Sr. AR, further referring to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh vs. H.M. Esufail, H.M. Abdulali (1973) 90 ITR 271(SC) submitted that, if evidence is found for suppression of turnover for a part of the period, then the remaining part of the Financial Year estimation can be made however, the said estimation should be on the basis of scientific method and some guess work. Further, the Ld. Sr. AR referring to the net profit estimated by the learned CIT(A) submitt…

Sama Narasimha Reddy and Sama Saraswathi Reddy Gardens, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2011-12 to AY

ITA 1333/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1332, 1333, 1334 &1335/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Sama Narasimha Reddy & Vs. Dcit, Sama Saraswathi Reddy Central Circle-1(2), Gardens, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aajfs7086H (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 16/02/2026 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 20/02/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)]-12, Hyderabad, Dated 15/07/2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (“A.Y”) 2011-12 & A.Y 2012-13 Respectively & Learned Cit(A)’S Orders Dated 04/07/2025, Pertaining To A.Y. 2013-14 & A.Y. 2014-15 Respectively. Since The Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Are Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 145Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250

…cer after considering the relevant facts has rightly estimated the suppressed turnover. The Ld. Sr. AR, further referring to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh vs. H.M. Esufail, H.M. Abdulali (1973) 90 ITR 271(SC) submitted that, if evidence is found for suppression of turnover for a part of the period, then the remaining part of the Financial Year estimation can be made however, the said estimation should be on the basis of scientific method and some guess work. Further, the Ld. Sr. AR referring to the net profit estimated by the learned CIT(A) submitt…

Sama Narasimha Reddy and Sama Saraswathi Reddy Gardens, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2011-12 to AY

ITA 1332/HYD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1332, 1333, 1334 &1335/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Sama Narasimha Reddy & Vs. Dcit, Sama Saraswathi Reddy Central Circle-1(2), Gardens, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aajfs7086H (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 16/02/2026 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 20/02/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)]-12, Hyderabad, Dated 15/07/2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (“A.Y”) 2011-12 & A.Y 2012-13 Respectively & Learned Cit(A)’S Orders Dated 04/07/2025, Pertaining To A.Y. 2013-14 & A.Y. 2014-15 Respectively. Since The Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Are Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 145Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250

…cer after considering the relevant facts has rightly estimated the suppressed turnover. The Ld. Sr. AR, further referring to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh vs. H.M. Esufail, H.M. Abdulali (1973) 90 ITR 271(SC) submitted that, if evidence is found for suppression of turnover for a part of the period, then the remaining part of the Financial Year estimation can be made however, the said estimation should be on the basis of scientific method and some guess work. Further, the Ld. Sr. AR referring to the net profit estimated by the learned CIT(A) submitt…

Hardayal Milk Products Private Limited, Shikohabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Firozabad

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is partly

ITA 342/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(2)Section 145(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 Hardayal Milk Products Private Vs. DCIT, Circle 2(2)(1), Limited, 318, Shambhoo Nagar, Firozabad. Shikohabad. PAN :AABCH7576E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Sahib P. Satsangee, C.A. Department by Sh. R.P. Maurya, CIT (A)-1/DR Date of hearing 16.12.2025 Date of pronouncement 29.12.2025 ORDER PER : S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The assessee has filed this appeal against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax…

The DCIT, Central Circle-2, Vadodara vs. M/S. Sigma Institute of Technology and Engineering, Vadodara

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 197/AHD/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: the Hon'ble Settlement Commission.

For Appellant: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT.DRFor Respondent: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &
Section 132Section 148Section 250

…Revenue contending that it was rightly exercised and the Ld. Counsel for the assessee contending that the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly rejected the same. The AO had relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CST vs. H. M. Esufali H. M. Abdulali 90 ITR 271 (SC). The Ld. CIT(A) had relied on the following decisions while rejecting extrapolation; Rajnik & Co. vs. CIT, 117 Taxman 675 (AP), CIT vs. Maheshwari Synthetics (P) Ltd., 73 taxmann.com 253 (P&H), CIT vs. Gupta Abhushan (P) Ltd., 178 Taxman 473 (Delhi). 7. We shall therefore be considering first the judicial view/stance on the exercise of extra…

Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

ITA 521/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, \nvk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos.513 & 519 to 521/JP/2025\nfu/k Zkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2018-19 to 2020-21\n\nSunil Kumar Agarwal\n395, Narnoli Mansion, Outside\nSanganeri Gate, Jaipur\ncuke\nVs.\nACIT,\nCentral Circle-2,\nJaipur\nLFkk;h y s[kk l a-@thvkb Zvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABRPA9601M\nvihykFkhZ@Appellant i zR;Fkh Z@Respondent\n\nvk;dj vihy la-@ITSS No. 03/JP/2025\nfu/k Zkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2015-16\

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 234B

…duty of the assessing officer to determine the taxable income by making such computation as he considers appropriate in the given situation. It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali [1973] 90 ITR 271 as under:- "In estimating any escaped turnover, it is inevitable that there is some guesswork. The assessing authority while making the best judgment assessment, no doubt, should arrive at his conclusion without any bias and on a rational basis. That authority should not be vindictive or capricious. If the estimate made by the 22 ITA Nos.513 & 51…

Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Cen. Cir-2, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 513/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 234B

…duty of the assessing officer to determine the taxable income by making such computation as he considers appropriate in the given situation. It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali [1973] 90 ITR 271 as under:- "In estimating any escaped turnover, it is inevitable that there is some guesswork. The assessing authority while making the best judgment assessment, no doubt, should arrive at his conclusion without any bias and on a rational basis. That authority should not be vindictive or capricious. If the estimate made by the fact that there is…

Bysani Srinath Mamatha, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for

ITA 410/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…e attempt of the assessee to reconcile figures over a three-month period post-search also resulted in higher totals, further confirming that purchases were inflated. 2.18 It is further noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CST v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali (90 ITR 271) has upheld the validity of extrapolation in assessment proceedings. In this case, since the assessee failed to substantiate purchases and the seized material established both\ inflation and diversion of cash, extrapolation of inflation at 25% of purchases is reasonable. Accordingly, the addition of ₹3,64,13,598/- is made to the returned income of…

Bysani Srinath Mamatha, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 409/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…attempt of the assessee to reconcile figures over a three-month period post-search also resulted in higher totals, further confirming that purchases were inflated. 2.18 It is further noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CST v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali (90 ITR 271) has upheld the validity of extrapolation in assessment proceedings. In this case, since the assessee failed to substantiate purchases and the seized material established both\ inflation and diversion of cash, extrapolation of inflation at 25% of purchases is reasonable. Accordingly, the addition of ₹3,64,13,598/- is made to the returned income of…

Bysani Srinath Mamatha, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 408/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…e attempt of the assessee to reconcile figures over a three-month period post-search also resulted in higher totals, further confirming that purchases were inflated. 2.18 It is further noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CST v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali (90 ITR 271) has upheld the validity of extrapolation in assessment proceedings. In this case, since the assessee failed to substantiate purchases and the seized material established both inflation and diversion of cash, extrapolation of inflation at 25% of purchases is reasonable. Accordingly, the addition of ₹3,64,13,598/- is made to the returned income of…

Bysani Srinath Mamatha, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years

ITA 407/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…e attempt of the assessee to reconcile figures over a three-month period post-search also resulted in higher totals, further confirming that purchases were inflated. 2.18 It is further noted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CST v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali (90 ITR 271) has upheld the validity of extrapolation in assessment proceedings. In this case, since the assessee failed to substantiate purchases and the seized material established both inflation and diversion of cash, extrapolation of inflation at 25% of purchases is reasonable. Accordingly, the addition of ₹3,64,13,598/- is made to the returned income of…

Bysani Srinath Mamatha, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 406/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…e attempt of the assessee to reconcile figures over a three-month period post-search also resulted in higher totals, further confirming that purchases were inflated. 2.18 It is further noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CST v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali (90 ITR 271) has upheld the validity of extrapolation in assessment proceedings. In this case, since the assessee failed to substantiate purchases and the seized material established both\ inflation and diversion of cash, extrapolation of inflation at 25% of purchases is reasonable. Accordingly, the addition of ₹3,64,13,598/- is made to the returned income of…

Bysani Srinath Mamatha, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, (OSD) Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 405/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…attempt of the assessee to reconcile figures over a three-month period post-search also resulted in higher totals, further confirming that purchases were inflated. 2.18 It is further noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CST v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali (90 ITR 271) has upheld the validity of extrapolation in assessment proceedings. In this case, since the assessee failed to substantiate purchases and the seized material established both\ inflation and diversion of cash, extrapolation of inflation at 25% of purchases is reasonable. Accordingly, the addition of ₹3,64,13,598/- is made to the returned income of…

Bysani Adinarayagupatha Srinath, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 404/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…e attempt of the assessee to reconcile figures over a three-month period post-search also resulted in higher totals, further confirming that purchases were inflated. 2.18 It is further noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CST v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali (90 ITR 271) has upheld the validity of extrapolation in assessment proceedings. In this case, since the assessee failed to substantiate purchases and the seized material established both\ inflation and diversion of cash, extrapolation of inflation at 25% of purchases is reasonable. Accordingly, the addition of ₹3,64,13,598/- is made to the returned income of…

Bysani Adinarayaguptha Srinath, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years

ITA 402/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…e attempt of the assessee to reconcile figures over a three-month period post-search also resulted in higher totals, further confirming that purchases were inflated. 2.18 It is further noted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CST v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali (90 ITR 271) has upheld the validity of extrapolation in assessment proceedings. In this case, since the assessee failed to substantiate purchases and the seized material established both inflation and diversion of cash, extrapolation of inflation at 25% of purchases is reasonable. Accordingly, the addition of ₹3,64,13,598/- is made to the returned income of…

Bysani Adinarayaguptha Srinath, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 401/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…e attempt of the assessee to reconcile figures over a three-month period post-search also resulted in higher totals, further confirming that purchases were inflated. 2.18 It is further noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CST v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali (90 ITR 271) has upheld the validity of extrapolation in assessment proceedings. In this case, since the assessee failed to substantiate purchases and the seized material established both inflation and diversion of cash, extrapolation of inflation at 25% of purchases is reasonable. Accordingly, the addition of ₹3,64,13,598/- is made to the returned income of…

Bysani Adinarayaguptha Srinath, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), Central Circle 1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 400/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…attempt of the assessee to reconcile figures over a three-month period post-search also resulted in higher totals, further confirming that purchases were inflated. 2.18 It is further noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CST v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali (90 ITR 271) has upheld the validity of extrapolation in assessment proceedings. In this case, since the assessee failed to substantiate purchases and the seized material established both\ inflation and diversion of cash, extrapolation of inflation at 25% of purchases is reasonable. Accordingly, the addition of ₹3,64,13,598/- is made to the returned income of…

Bysani Adinarayaguptha Srinath, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 399/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…attempt of the assessee to reconcile figures over a three-month period post-search also resulted in higher totals, further confirming that purchases were inflated. 2.18 It is further noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CST v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali (90 ITR 271) has upheld the validity of extrapolation in assessment proceedings. In this case, since the assessee failed to substantiate purchases and the seized material established both\ inflation and diversion of cash, extrapolation of inflation at 25% of purchases is reasonable. Accordingly, the addition of ₹3,64,13,598/- is made to the returned income of…

Late Shri Mahabir Prasad(Legal Heir Ms. Parul Kansaria), Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

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

ITA 412/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153CSection 153D

…ble during search proceedings amounting to ₹ 45,197,700/– and so additions if any must be restricted to this figure only and there cannot be any extrapolation of any figures. The learned assessing officer relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 90 ITR 271 wherein income was ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page 8 of 40 estimated based on the documents found during survey. He held that where it is purely a question of making estimate, it has been held by the honourable Supreme Court that the estimate of the assessing officer should not be disturbed, provided it is fair and bonafide. iii. The…