Pandit Brothers v. CIT

38 ITR 152High Court1960#7438 most cited

What is Pandit Brothers v. CIT authority for?

An assessee's books of account cannot be rejected solely because the profits disclosed are low, especially if there is no stock register.

15

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Pandit Brothers v CIT · section 145 · rejection of books of account · low profits · stock register · income tax assessment · business income · India · HC

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 147Section 148

Issues it is cited on

section 145(1)rejection of books of accountsection 145section 139(1)section 139section 13section 14businesssection 143(3)indianfactotal income

Judgments citing Pandit Brothers v. CIT

Arbuda Textile Mill, Ahmedabad vs. NFAC, Delhi Present Juris. Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1906/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 145

…undertaken and was reflected in the balance sheet of the Assessee. In a large number of decisions, including Pandit Bros v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 159 (Punj. & Har.), Bombay Cycle Stores Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1958] 33 ITR 13 (Bom.) and S. Veeriah Reddiar v. CIT [1960] 38 ITR 152 (Ker.), it has been held that the mere non- maintenance of stock register would not lead to the conclusion that profit of the Assessee could not be determined on the basis of the books of accounts maintained by it. 12. In the case of Fine Switchgears vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax [2017] 88 taxmann.com 779 (Amritsar - Trib.)/[2017] 185…

ACIT, Allahabad vs. Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar, Allahabad

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 12/ALLD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 153A

…ent is under the U.P. Sales Tax Act but is relevant in the context of the present case. I.T.A. No.379/Alld/2013, A.Y. 2010-11 56 I.T.A. No.12/Alld/2014, A.Y. 2010-11 15. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the assessee reported in 26 ITR page 159, 38 ITR 152 and 83 ITR 484 are not applicable to the present case. They were the cases of traders and not the manufacturer. It may be mentioned that there is nothing on record to show that in the previous year, assessee has maintained books of account in the similar fashion and its books of account have been accepted. 16. In view of foregoing discussions, qu…

M/S Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar, Allahabad vs. Jt.CIT, Allahabad

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 379/ALLD/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 153A

…ent is under the U.P. Sales Tax Act but is relevant in the context of the present case. I.T.A. No.379/Alld/2013, A.Y. 2010-11 56 I.T.A. No.12/Alld/2014, A.Y. 2010-11 15. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the assessee reported in 26 ITR page 159, 38 ITR 152 and 83 ITR 484 are not applicable to the present case. They were the cases of traders and not the manufacturer. It may be mentioned that there is nothing on record to show that in the previous year, assessee has maintained books of account in the similar fashion and its books of account have been accepted. 16. In view of foregoing discussions, qu…

The ACIT, Central-2, Indore vs. M/S. Shakti Pumps (India) Ltd., Indore

ITA 1358/IND/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit (Central)-2, Shakti Pumps (India) Ltd. Indore 226, Shastri Market, बनाम/ M.G. Road, Vs. Indore (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aaecs 5027 L Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti & Vijay Bansal, Ars Date Of Hearing 23/11/2022 / 22.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26.04.2023

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 263

…nts are correct and complete, and the AO's decision on these matters is not to be a subjective or arbitrary decision but a judicial decision and cannot be accepted if there is no material to support his finding [emphasis supplied] a) S. Veeriah Reddiar [1960] 38 ITR 152 (Ker) b) JA Trivedi Bros. [1986] 158 ITR 705 (MP), SLP dismissed: [1991] 187 ITR (St.) 37 (SC) 2.38 The head note in the case of decision of Cristopia Energy Systems Pvt. Ltd 2010] 16 ITJ 8 (Indore), by Hon'ble jurisdictional ITAT bench, read - “Assessee engaged in manufacturing chillers and nodules - during the year, assessee used two new raw mat…

Shree Siddhi Vinayak Inductions Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

ITA 1/JPR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. P. R. Meena (PCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

…Ramchindra Ramniwas V/s State of Orissa (1970) 25 STC 501(Ori) it was held that the account books of the assessee cannot be rejected merely on the ground of low profits. • In Pandit Brothers V/s CIT, (1954)26 ITR 159 (Punj), S. Veereah Reddiar V/s CIT, (1960) 38 ITR 152 (Ker), M. Durai Raj v/s CIT (1972) 83 ITR 484 (Ker), it was held that the books of the accounts of the assessee cannot be rejected where profits disclosed were low and there was no stock register. • In International forest company V/s CIT (1975) 101 ITR 721 (J&K) it was held that the books of the accounts of the assessee cannot be rejected due to…

M/S Shri Siddhi Vinayak Induction P. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

ITA 279/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. P. R. Meena (PCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

…Ramchindra Ramniwas V/s State of Orissa (1970) 25 STC 501(Ori) it was held that the account books of the assessee cannot be rejected merely on the ground of low profits. • In Pandit Brothers V/s CIT, (1954)26 ITR 159 (Punj), S. Veereah Reddiar V/s CIT, (1960) 38 ITR 152 (Ker), M. Durai Raj v/s CIT (1972) 83 ITR 484 (Ker), it was held that the books of the accounts of the assessee cannot be rejected where profits disclosed were low and there was no stock register. • In International forest company V/s CIT (1975) 101 ITR 721 (J&K) it was held that the books of the accounts of the assessee cannot be rejected due to…

Shree Siddhi Vinayak Induction Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

ITA 116/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. P. R. Meena (PCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

…Ramchindra Ramniwas V/s State of Orissa (1970) 25 STC 501(Ori) it was held that the account books of the assessee cannot be rejected merely on the ground of low profits. • In Pandit Brothers V/s CIT, (1954)26 ITR 159 (Punj), S. Veereah Reddiar V/s CIT, (1960) 38 ITR 152 (Ker), M. Durai Raj v/s CIT (1972) 83 ITR 484 (Ker), it was held that the books of the accounts of the assessee cannot be rejected where profits disclosed were low and there was no stock register. • In International forest company V/s CIT (1975) 101 ITR 721 (J&K) it was held that the books of the accounts of the assessee cannot be rejected due to…

M/S Shubham Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd., Ellenabad vs. DCIT, Circle, Sirsa

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1416/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Oct 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234Section 234B

…Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 999/2010 dated 03.08.2010 • CIT Vs. Smt. Poonam Rani 326 ITR 223 (Del) • CIT Vs. Jas Jack Elegance Exports 324 ITR 95 • ITO Vs. Somsons & Co., 148 Taxman 21 (Asr) (Mag) • Pandit Bors. Vs. CIT 26 ITR 159 (Punj) • S. Veeriah Reddiar Vs. CIT 38 ITR 152 (Ker) • P. Venkanna Vs. CIT 72 ITR 328 (Mys) • R.V.S. and Sons Dairy Farm Vs. CIT 257 ITR 764 (Mad) • CIT Vs. Superior Crafts in ITA No. 244/2009, 547/2011, 548/2011 and 615/2011(Del) dt. 06/03/2012 • CIT Vs. Jacksons House 198 Taxman 385 (Del) • CIT Vs. Winner Constructions (P) Ltd. in ITA No. 796/2011(Del) dt. 03/05/2012 • Lunar Electricals Vs.…

Shri Mohan Lal Bargoti, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1462/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1462/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2013-14 Shri Mohan Lal Bargoti, Cuke A.C.I.T. Vs. 1-A-1, 1-A-2, Subhash Colony, Circle-4, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur. Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abzpb 7893 C Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 18/06/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/07/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 14/11/2018 For The A.Y. 2013-14. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are As Under:

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 44ASection 69

…f accounts u/s 145(3). The Ld. A.O. was not justified in rejecting the books of accounts on very trivial matters. He has relied on the following judicial pronouncements: i. Pandit Bros. V. CIT, (1954) 26 ITR 159 (Punjab); ii. S. Veeriah Reddiar V. CIT, (1960) 38 ITR 152 (Kerala); iii. M. Durai Raj V. CIT, (1972) 83 ITR 484 (Kerala). iv. CIT Vs. Gotan Lime 256 ITR 243 (Rajasthan) v. Vishal Infrastructure Ltd. Assessment CIT [2007] 11 SOT 386/104 ITD 537(Hyd.). vi. Narsing Das Ram Kisan Vs. ACIT 272 ITR 467 The ld AR has further submitted that even if books of accounts are rejected on one or the other ground, this…

Pathak Roadlines, Palwal vs. ITO Ward -II(1), Faridabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2941/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Shri Nippun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Chopra, Sr. DR

…ot be a ground for rejection of the books of account results, as per the ratio laid down in the following cases: I. S. N. NamasivayamChettiar v. CIT [1960] 38 ITR 579 (SC); II. Pandit Bros. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 159 (P&H); III. S. VeeriahReddiar v. CIT [1960] 38 ITR 152 (Ker); IV. International Forest Co. v. CIT [1975] 101 ITR 721 (J&K). (9) That merely because net profit margin is lower in the instant assessment year under appeal vis-a-vis preceding assessment year cannot be a ground of additions to the income of the assessee unless the Revenue points out particular defect or discrepancies in the books of accou…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Asian Granito India Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2451/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Ankit Talsania, A.RFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Sharma, C.I.T.DR
Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 14A

…was under the obligation to accept the results shown by the assessee in its books of accounts. The assessee in support of his contention referred the following orders: (a) CIT v Vikram Plastics & ORS reported in 239 ITR 161 (b) S. VeeriahReddiar v CIT,(1960) 38 ITR 152, 170 (ker) (c) CIT v Mcmillan& Co (1958) 33 ITR 182 SC (d) CIT v Sarangpur Cotton Mfg . Co. Ltd. (1938) 6 ITR 36 (PC) 14. The learned CIT (A) after considering the submission of the assessee referred to the informations about the 4 companies on the basis of which the addition was made by the AO on account of suppressed production and sale of such…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Asian Granito India Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1517/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2019AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Ankit Talsania, A.RFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Sharma, C.I.T.DR
Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 14A

…was under the obligation to accept the results shown by the assessee in its books of accounts. The assessee in support of his contention referred the following orders: (a) CIT v Vikram Plastics & ORS reported in 239 ITR 161 (b) S. VeeriahReddiar v CIT,(1960) 38 ITR 152, 170 (ker) (c) CIT v Mcmillan& Co (1958) 33 ITR 182 SC (d) CIT v Sarangpur Cotton Mfg . Co. Ltd. (1938) 6 ITR 36 (PC) 14. The learned CIT (A) after considering the submission of the assessee referred to the informations about the 4 companies on the basis of which the addition was made by the AO on account of suppressed production and sale of such…

M/S Maruti Udyog Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Del

ITA/31/2005HC Delhi07 Dec 2017

Bench: 31St March 2000, I.E. The End Of The Relevant Accounting Year, Even Though The Assessee Has Already Incurred Liability Of Excise Duty Of Rs.12.27 Crores?

Section 260ASection 43B

…the balance sheet of the Assessee. In a large ITA No.31/2005 Page 38 of 41 number of decisions, including Pandit Bros. v. CIT (1954)26 ITR 159 (P&H), Bombay Cycle Stores Co. Ltd v. CIT (1958) 33 ITR 13 (Bom) and Veeriah Reddiar (S) v. CIT (1960) 38 ITR 152 (Ker), it has been held that the mere non- maintenance of stock register would not lead to the conclusion that profit of the Assessee could not be determined on the basis of the books of accounts maintained by it. 74. For all of the aforementioned reasons, the Court answers Questions (iv) to (viii) in the affirmative, i.e. in favour of th…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Rexam Htw Beverages Can(India) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6100/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. M/S. Rexam Htw Beverages Dcit, Circle -15(1), New Delhi Can(India) Ltd., 448, Bartan Market, Sadar Bazar, New Delhi Pan : Aabch7101B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Respondent By S/Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Adv. & Shailesh Gupta, Ca Date Of Hearing 22.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 21.04.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 27/08/2013 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax( Appeals)-Xviii, New Delhi (In Short ‘The Cit-A’) For Assessment Year 2009-10 Raising Following Grounds: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee Without Appreciating Die Reasons For Rejecting The Books Of Accounts Given By The Assessing Officer In The Order Itself. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Appreciating The Facts That During Assessment Proceedings, Gross Disparities Between The Results Shown By The Assessee Were Found Which Is An Appropriate Reason-To- Invoke The Provision Of Section 145(3) Of The Act.

Section 145Section 145(3)

…the facts in detail, I am of the considered view that action of Assessing Officer rejecting books of accounts is not based on any concrete finding. Appellant’s reliance on the following case laws is appreciated:- (i) 26ITR 159 (Punj) Pandit Bros. v. CIT (ii) 38 ITR 152 (Ker) S. Veeriah Reddiar v. CIT (iii) 72 ITR 328 (Mys) P. Venkana v. CIT (iv) 257 ITR 764 (Mad) R. V. S. and Sons Dair Farm vs. CIT (v) 38 ITR 579 (SC) S.N. Namasivayam Chettial vs. CIT 8 7.5 After considering the facts in totality, I find that there is no merit in the finding of the Assessing Officer to reject books of accounts and Assessing Off…

ACIT, Circle - 1, Asansol vs. Burnpur Cement Ltd., Asansol

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 28/KOL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.28/Kol/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Acit, Circle-I, Lower Vs. Brunpur Cement Ltd., 141, Chelidanga, Asansol-4 Cement House, Saradapally, Ashok Nagar, Asansol, District-Burdwan- 713304 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacca 1999 B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Niraj Kumar Cit Dr "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.M.Surana Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26/08/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 19/10/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per M.Balaganesh, Am This Appeal Of The Assessee Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Cit(A), Asansol, In Appeal No.296/Cit(A)/Asl/R-I/Asl/10-11 Dated 31.10.2011 Passed Against The Order Of Assessment Framed U/S.144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

For Appellant: Shri S.M.Surana AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar CIT DR
Section 144

…nciple that a lower GP rate does not warrant rejection of accounts without having pointed out any defects in the said books. The assessee relied on the following decisions :- Pandit Bros vs CIT reported in 26 ITR 159 (P&H) S Veeriah Reddiar vs CIT reported in 38 ITR 152 (Ker) International Forest Co vs CIT reported in 101 ITR 721 (J&K) Ratna Café vs State of Madras reported in 33 STC 39 (Mad) M Durairaj vs CIT reported in 83 ITR 484 (Ker) Jhandu Mal Tara Chand Rice Mills vs CIT reported in 73 ITR 192 (P&H) ITO vs Girish M Mehta reported in 296 ITR (AT) 125 (Rajkot) CIT vs Smt Poonam Rani reported in 326 ITR 223 (…

Pandit Brothers v. CIT (38 ITR 152) — Cited in 15 Judgments | BharatTax