Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Commissioner of Sales Tax v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 148, Section 132(4), Section 132, Section 133A, Section 139, Section 147.

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

Q: How many judgments cite Commissioner of Sales Tax v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali?

232 judgments on BharatTax cite Commissioner of Sales Tax v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali (90 ITR 271), spanning 2010 to 2026.

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

Issues it is cited on

section 132(3)section 13(1)(c)section 131(1)section 13(1)section 132(4a)dumb documents section 153a(1)(b)best judgment assessment loose papers retracted statement rejection of books of account section 250(4)

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

Miss Shivani Jain, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-17, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in these three appeals ( ITA No

ITA 778/KOL/2014[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Feb 2017AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.778 To 780/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2004-2005 To 2006-2007) Miss Shivani Jain, Vs. Dcit, Circle-17 Krishna Building, Income Tax Office, Bamboo Room No.618, Villa, 169, Ajc Bose Road, 224, Ajc Bose Road, Kolkata-700014 6Th Floor, Kolkata-700017 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adqpj 1598 R .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ankit Jalan, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : None सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 07/02/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 15/02/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years 2004-2005, 2005-06 & 2006-07, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxiv, Kolkata, In Appeal No.1467, 1468 & 1469/Cit(A)-Xxiv/C-17/13-14, All Dated 10.02.2014, Which In Turn Arise Out Of Orders Made By The Ao U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To The ‘Act’), All Dated 21.05.2009. 2. Since These Three Appeals Relate To Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years & Common Issues Involved, Therefore, These Have Been Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. The Assessee`S Appeal In, Ita No.778/Kol/2014 Is Taken As The Lead Case.

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Jalan, ARFor Respondent: None

Section 271(1)(c)

…sed in this appeal nor any supporting evidences were produced by him despite adequate opportunity having been provided. In this connection, reliance may be placed upon the decision of the Hon.ble Supreme Court in the case of H.M. Esufali H. M. Abdulali (1973) 90 ITR 271 wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that the appellate authority cannot substitute its own judgement in place of the judgement of the A.O. unless it is shown that the judgement of the A.O. was biased, irrational, vindictive or capricious. In the instant case the appellant has not able to show that the decision of the A.O. was arbitrary, biased, irr…

M/S Deepraj Vinimay Pvt Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1656/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Choudhary, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 144

…sed in this appeal nor any supporting evidences were produced by him despite adequate opportunity having been provided. In this connection, reliance may be placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of H.M. Esufali H. M. Abdulali (1973) 90 ITR 271 wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that the appellate authority cannot substitute its own judgement in place of the judgement of the A,O. unless it Is shown that the judgement of the A.O. was biased, Irrational, vindictive or capricious. In the instant case, the appellant has not able to show that the decision of the A.O. was arbitrary, biased, ir…

Biwanath Lohia, Kolkata vs. The ITO, WD-48(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 1289/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1289/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2006-2007) Biswanath Lohia, Huf, Vs. Ito, Ward-48 (3), 171/1, Jn Mukherjee Road, 3, Govt. Place(W) Salkia, Howrah-6, Kolkata-700001 C/O: Sri Jitendra Kaushik, Advocate, 19-D, Muktaram Babu Street, Kolkata-700007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaehb 6352 A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nirmal Kaushik, Advocate Revenue By : Md. Ghyas Uddin, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 05/01/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 13/01/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2006-07, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Kolkata, In Appeal No.15/Cit(A)-14Wd-47(3)/2011-12, Dated 28.04.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3)/154 Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (In Short The ‘Act’), Dated 28.03.2011. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 8.11.2006 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,05,810/-. Asessee’S Case Was Selected For Scrutiny U/S.143(3) & The Ao Has Completed The Assessment By Making Various Additions. Later On, The Assessing Officer Passed The Rectification Order Under Section 154 Of The Act Observing That Deduction U/S 24(A) Of The I.T. Act Was Wrongly Allowed To The Assessee. Assessing Officer Observed That The Assessee Is Not Owner Of Any House Property & An Amount Received By The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri Nirmal Kaushik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. Ghyas Uddin, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 24

…t received by the Assessee Rs. 5,00,000/- is without any consideration. 3. Aggrieved from the order of the AO, assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), who relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of H.M.Esufali H.M. Abdulali (1973) 90 ITR 271, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. The observations of the ld CIT(A) are as under:- In this connection, reliance may be placed upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of H.M.Esufali H.M.Abdulali (1973) 90 ITR 271 wherein the Hon’ble Court has held that the appellate authority cannot substitute its own judgment in place of…

JCIT, Ghaziabad vs. M/S. System Controls & Transformers Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad

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

ITA 5335/DEL/2011[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2017AY 1994-95

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Anadi N. Mishrasystem Controls & Transformers Pvt. Jcit, Ltd., Range-2, Cgo-2, Vs. Ghaziabad Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd, Hapur Road, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/sh. Sanjiv Sapra, Adv & A.S. Jindal

Section 145(2)Section 234BSection 40A(3)

…44 and 145(3) of I.T. Act shows that the AO was required to make the assessment to the best of her judgment. Best judgment assessment has been explained by Hon'ble Apex court in the highly illuminating order in the case of CST vs. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali, 90 ITR 271 (SC). Although this was a decision under sales tax law, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has noted in this decision itself, at page 278 of 90 ITR, that the law relating to best judgment assessment is the same both in the case of Income tax assessment as well as \ Page 17 of 28 in the case of sales tax assessment. Therefore, order of Hon'ble Apex Court…

Shyamal Dutta, Burdwan vs. ITO, WD 1(3), Burdwan

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

ITA 1785/KOL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…otices were issued on 19-11-2013, 17-12-2015 and 08-02-2016. But no one appeared representing the assessee to prosecute the case. In view of the same, the CIT-A following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of H.M Esufali H.M Abdulali (1973) 90 ITR 271 dismissed the appeal of assessee by passing an ex parte order. 5. Before us the ld. AR submits that the Counsel of the assessee who was appointed by the assessee to appear before the CIT-A is aged about 80 years and was advised bed rest for 4 months due to his illness. Thus, he could not appear before the CIT-A to prosecute the case of assessee a…

M/S Savitri Ispat(India) Pvt Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1564/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

…. Accordingly, the case adjourned to 26.04.2016 and thereafter, on 04.05.2016 none appeared before him. While disposing off the appeal the CIT-A has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of H.M Esufali H.M Abdulali reported in (1973) 90 ITR 271 for the proposition that the appellate authority cannot substitute its own judgement in place of the judgement of the AO unless it is shown that the judgement of the AO was biased, irrational, vindictive or capricious. Before us the ld.AR submits that the above judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of supra does not apply to the presen…

M/S. Tayal Concast (P) Ltd., Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed accordingly

ITA 4693/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra :Asstt. Yr: 2010-11 M/S Tayal Concast (P) Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax Officer, 321, Sanjay Marg, Ward 2(3), Muzaffarnagar. Muzaffarnagar. Pan: Aabct 1327 P ( Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Prem Prakash Adv. & Shri Ashish Advocate Respondent By : Shri S.K. Jain Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/10/2016. Date Of Order : 08/11/2016. O R D E R Per S.V. Mehrotra, A.M:

For Appellant: Shri Prem Prakash Adv. &For Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 145Section 40A(3)

…ted then AO cannot make separate additions in respect of different items and, therefore, this observation of AO is not legally sustainable in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioenr of Sales Tax Vs. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali 90 ITR 271, wherein it has been, inter alia, held as under: “The distinction between a “best judgment" assessment and assessment based on the accounts submitted by an assessee must be borne in mind. Sometimes there may be innocent or trivial mistakes in the accounts maintained by the assessee. There may be even certain unintended or unimportant omissions in…

Smt. Dayawanti Through Smt. Sunita Gupta (Legal Heir) vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/357/2015HC Delhi27 Oct 2016

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

Section 139(1)Section 145Section 153A

…ITA 357/2015 & connected matters Page 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 02.09.2016 Pronounced on: 27.10.2016 + ITA 357/2015 + ITA 358/2015 + ITA 359/2015 + ITA 565/2015 + ITA 566/2015 SMT. DAYAWANTI THROUGH SMT. SUNITA GUPTA (LEGAL HEIR) …………Appellant Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ……..Respondent + ITA 360/2015 + ITA 361/2015 AJAY GUPTA ……Appellant Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ……..Respondent Through: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Sh. Sumit Lal Chandani and Sh…

Smt. Daya Wanti Through Smt. Sunita Gupta (Legal Heir) vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA-357/2015HC Delhi27 Oct 2016

Section 139(1)Section 145Section 153A

Asst CIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai vs. Giriraj Developers, Navi Mumbai

Appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5682/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

Section 143(3)

…upon other identical transactions. Therefore, the assessee cannot take the benefit of these judgments on the facts of the case before us. Our view also finds support from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CST vs. H.M. Esufali H. M. Abdulali 90 ITR 271. Thus, with the aforesaid directions, this issue is sent back to the file of the AO. 3. Now we shall take up Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.5682/Mum/2014 for A.Y. 2010-11: 3.1. In this year, the facts are that the assessee had sold 4 shops namely S-01, S-23, S-31 & S-32. It is brought to our notice by the Ld. Counsel that as accepted by the Ld. CIT(…

ACIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai vs. Giriraj Developers, Navi Mumbai

Appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 957/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

Section 143(3)

Sri Amrik Singh, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T Cir - 29, Kolkata

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

ITA 1678/KOL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 May 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] I.T.A No. 1678/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: S.S.Alam, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, AM & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM ] I.T.A No. 1678/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2004-05 Sri Amrik Singh -vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-9, Kolkata Kolkata [PAN : ALPS0366C] (Respondent) (Appellant) For the Appellant : Shri Manish Tiwari, FCA For the Respondent : S.S.Alam, JCIT, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 04.04.2016. Date of Pronouncement : 11.05.2016. ORDER Per N.V.Vasudevan, JM This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order dated 08.03.2013 of CIT(A)- XVII, Kolkata, relating to AY 2004-05. 2. Ground of appeal raised by the assess…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Rama Krishna Jeweller (India), New Delhi

In the result, we confirm the finding of ld

ITA 5417/DEL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Nandita Kanchan, CIT DR

Section 153A

…71298/- which is for 191 days can be extrapolated for the whole year of 300 days for making addition in the hands of the assessee. Ld. CIT DR has relied on the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CST Vs. H. M. Eyusufali H. M. Abdulali reported at 90 ITR 271 (SC) wherein it has been held that estimate can be made. Against this ld. AR submitted that the sales cannot be extrapolated in absence of any evidence found. He further submitted plethora of cases wherein it is held that sales cannot be extrapolated beyond the period for which the evidences are available. It is an admitted fact that the annexure…

ACIT Cen Cir-13, Mumbai vs. Giriraj Developers, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the assessee appeal for Asst

ITA 5114/MUM/2009[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri. Chetan KariaFor Respondent: Shri. Subachan Ram

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153C

…on account of unaccounted sales of shops for A.Y. 2007-08 can also be used it for arriving at unaccounted sale of shops for A.Y. 2006-07, applying the ration of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CST vs. H.M.Esufali H.M. Abdualili (1973) 90 ITR 271. 5 ITA No. 5113-14 /MUM/2009 Assessment Year: 2006-07 &2007-08 & ITA 5067/MUM/2009 Assessment Year: 2007-08 III. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in not accepting the fact that there were unaccounted sales pertaining to shop nos. S-15 and S-16 for A.Y. 2006-07. IV. On the facts and circumst…

ACIT Cen Cir-13, Mumbai vs. Giriraj Developers, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the assessee appeal for Asst

ITA 5113/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri. Chetan KariaFor Respondent: Shri. Subachan Ram

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153C

Giriraj Developers, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT (CC) 13, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee appeal for Asst

ITA 5067/MUM/2009[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri. Chetan KariaFor Respondent: Shri. Subachan Ram

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153C

Anand Restaurant, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 56, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as stated above

ITA 1119/KOL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: D.K. Saha, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)

…sales figure at 40% on sales as reported by the assessee and made an addition of Rs.28,03,693/- for the A.Y 2008-09. The ld. AO also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. H.M Abdulali reported in (1973) 90 ITR 271(SC), wherein it was held that once the basis of sales not declared for tax is established, it may be used as a basis for sales for the entire period. On 1st appeal before the ld.CIT(A) the assessee tried to explain that the statement on oath taken u/s. 133A of the Act on 18-02-2008 does not have any evidentiary value and any estimation made on suc…

Sri Prabir Chandra Chowdhury, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T Cir - 49, Kolkata

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

ITA 554/KOL/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2015AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Uday Kr. Sankar, Addl. CIT, DR

Section 143(3)

…d by him despite adequate opportunity having been provided. Sm. Puspita Chowdhury & Sri Prabir Ch. Chowdhury AY 2008-09 In this connection, reliance may be placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali (1973) 90 ITR 271 wherein the Hon’ble court has held that the appellate authority cannot substitute its own judgment in place of the judgment of the AO unless it is shown that the judgment of the AO was biased, irrational, vindictive or capricious. In the instant case the appellant has not able to show that the decision of the AO was arbitrary, biased, irrational,…

Smt. Puspita Chowdhury, Kolkata vs. I.T.O WD - 49(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 553/KOL/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2015AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Uday Kr. Sankar, Addl. CIT, DR

Section 143(3)

Prabhu Coffee Works vs. The Additional Commissioner

In the result, we confirm the order of the

STA/507/2010HC Karnataka20 Dec 2013

Bench: JAWAD RAHIM,B.MANOHAR

Section 16Section 22Section 5Section 5(3)(a)Section 6Section 7

…ue had come up for consideration before this Court, in the case of S.S.MUDDANNA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA (1993) 89 STC 90, this Court relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX vs. H.M. ESUFALI H.M. ABDULALI (1976) 32 STC 77, opined: -: 14 :- “Unless the order of assessing authority is ‘prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue’, it is not to be construed in a petty-fogging manner, but must be given a dignified construction. It may be noted that the use of the expression 'Revenue', in our opinion, is significant. It denotes some kind of abstraction or symbol in…