← All Phrases

“best judgment assessment”

Assessment ProceduresSection 144Section 1441,400 judgments

The decision most relied on for best judgment assessment is Kachwala Gems v. JCIT (288 ITR 10), cited in 332 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on best judgment assessment

Kachwala Gems v. JCIT
288 ITR 10 · 2007 · Supreme Court
332
citing judgments

In a best judgment assessment, some guesswork is inherent, but the estimate must be fair and not arbitrary. Books of account can be rejected under Section 145(3) if the assessee fails to substantiate entries or prove the genuineness of transactions, leading to estimation of income.

Commissioner of Sales Tax v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali
90 ITR 271 · 1973 · Supreme Court
232
citing judgments

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.

CIT v. Gurubachhan Singh J. Juneja
302 ITR 63 · 2008 · High Court
147
citing judgments

When unaccounted receipts or suppressed sales are detected and books of account are rejected under Section 145(3), additions to income must be restricted to the profit element embedded in such transactions, not the entire transaction value. This profit element is to be estimated by considering the assessee's regular profit ratio as per books of account.

Man Mohan Sadani v. CIT
304 ITR 52 · 2008 · High Court
132
citing judgments

When assessing income from undisclosed or unrecorded sales, the entire sale proceeds cannot be added to the assessee's income; instead, only the net profit embedded in such unaccounted sales, determined by applying the assessee's net profit rate, should be taxed.

Brij Bhushan Lal Paraduman Kumar v. CIT
115 ITR 524 · 1978 · Supreme Court
113
citing judgments

The Supreme Court holds that an Assessing Officer, when making a best judgment assessment or estimating income, must act fairly, honestly, and rationally, basing the estimation on available material and avoiding arbitrary or capricious decisions. Adherence to natural justice principles is crucial during assessment proceedings.

CIT v. Laxminarain Badridas
5 ITR 170 · 1937 · Supreme Court
79
citing judgments

An income tax officer making a best judgment assessment must act honestly, not dishonestly, vindictively, or capriciously. They must make a fair estimate of the assessment, considering local knowledge, repute, and previous assessments.

State of Kerala v. C. Velukutty
60 ITR 239 · 1966 · Supreme Court
78
citing judgments

A best judgment assessment must be based on wisdom, truth, and legal principles, not arbitrary caprice. While it involves estimation and guesswork, this must have a reasonable nexus to available material and the case's circumstances.

Shankar Khandasari Sugar Mills v. CIT
193 ITR 669 · 1992 · High Court
64
citing judgments

Best judgment assessments under Section 144 must be a fair and rational estimation of income by the Assessing Officer, not capricious or arbitrary. Appellate authorities should accept clarificatory evidence to test the fairness of such assessments, even if produced for the first time.

Judgments citing best judgment assessment

Kk Radhakrishnan, Kannur vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Kozhikode

ITA 517/COCH/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM

Kk Mohandas, Kannur vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 499/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Ramarao, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 69C

such practices are adopted, nobody can expect evidence for every year in a block period. What is possible is only to have a best judgment assessment on the basis of the evidence collected during search. The assessing officer is authorised and empowered to make block assessment in a judicious manner

Kk Mohandas, Kannur vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 498/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Ramarao, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 69C

such practices are adopted, nobody can expect evidence for every year in a block period. What is possible is only to have a best judgment assessment on the basis of the evidence collected during search. The assessing officer is authorised and empowered to make block assessment in a judicious manner

Kk Mohandas, Kannur vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 496/COCH/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Ramarao, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 69C

such practices are adopted, nobody can expect evidence for every year in a block period. What is possible is only to have a best judgment assessment on the basis of the evidence collected during search. The assessing officer is authorised and empowered to make block assessment in a judicious manner

Kk Mohandas, Kannur vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 495/COCH/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Ramarao, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 69C

such practices are adopted, nobody can expect evidence for every year in a block period. What is possible is only to have a best judgment assessment on the basis of the evidence collected during search. The assessing officer is authorised and empowered to make block assessment in a judicious manner

K.K.Builders, Kannur vs. DCIT, Kozhikkode

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 237/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

such practices are adopted, nobody can expect evidence for every year in a block period. What is possible is only to have a best judgment assessment on the basis of the evidence collected during search. The assessing officer is authorised and empowered to make block assessment in a judicious manner

K.K.Builders, Kannur vs. DCIT, Kozhikkode

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 236/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

such practices are adopted, nobody can expect evidence for every year in a block period. What is possible is only to have a best judgment assessment on the basis of the evidence collected during search. The assessing officer is authorised and empowered to make block assessment in a judicious manner

K.K.Builders, Kannur vs. DCIT, Kozhikkode

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 235/COCH/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Aug 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

such practices are adopted, nobody can expect evidence for every year in a block period. What is possible is only to have a best judgment assessment on the basis of the evidence collected during search. The assessing officer is authorised and empowered to make block assessment in a judicious manner

Jayakumaran Pillai Govindapillai, Kollam vs. Income Tax Officer, Kollam

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

ITA 463/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2015-16 Jayakumaran Pillai Govindapillai .......... Appellant Arya Bhawan, Kuttikkadu, Kadakkal, Kottarakkara, Kollam, Kerala [Pan: Amdpp 2014 J] Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Kollam .......... Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Divya Ravindran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

11/04/2022, however, assessee had not complied with the notice issued. Under these circumstances, the AO was constrained to pass the best judgment assessment vide order dated 21/02/2024 u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144r.w.s. 144B of the Act after making addition of Rs.13,97,000/- as unexplained money of the assessee. 3. Being

Mannuthy Town Co Operative Society Ltd No R1143, Mannuthy vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Thrissur

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 394/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Alan Dev, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

with the notice issued u/s. 148 nor 142(1) calling for certain details. Under these circumstances, the AO was constrained to pass the best judgment assessment vide order dated 24/03/2022 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act at a total income of Rs. 30,43,110/-. While doing

Mannuthy Town Co Operative Society Limited No R 1143, Mannuthy vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Thrissur

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 384/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Alan Dev, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

with the notice issued u/s. 148 nor 142(1) calling for certain details. Under these circumstances, the AO was constrained to pass the best judgment assessment vide order dated 24/03/2022 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act at a total income of Rs. 30,43,110/-. While doing

Kannankulam Poulose Johny, Thrissur vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Thrissur

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

ITA 380/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kannankulam Poulose Johny, .......... Appellant Kannankulam House, Poovanchira Pananchery, Thrissur-680 652 [Pan: Acfpj 2655 M] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Thrissur .......... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Johny, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 250Section 250(6)

issued u/s. 142(1) nor letter issued u/s. 133(6) of the Act. In these circumstnnances, the AO was constrained to pass the best judgment assessment and made addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- by observing that assessee made cash deposits in SBNs during demonitization period. 3. Being aggrieved

Suresh Patel, Dewas vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 131/IND/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 144Section 249(4)(b)Section 253(5)Section 271(1)(c)

response on behalf of the assessee to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer, therefore, the assessment was framed ex-parte as best judgment assessment thereby the Assessing Officer has assessed total income of the assessee at Rs.36,03,600/-. The assessee has explained the reasons for non-appearance before

Suresh Patel, Dewas vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 130/IND/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 144Section 249(4)(b)Section 253(5)Section 271(1)(c)

response on behalf of the assessee to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer, therefore, the assessment was framed ex-parte as best judgment assessment thereby the Assessing Officer has assessed total income of the assessee at Rs.36,03,600/-. The assessee has explained the reasons for non-appearance before

Randheer Singh, Faizabad vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, NFAC, Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 218/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Randheer Singh V. The Assessment Unit Nara Pura Bazar Income Tax Department Faizabad Nfac, Delhi Tan/Pan:Gpfps1546D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shailendra Mishra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Shailendra Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 115BSection 144BSection 147Section 147rSection 148Section 69A

assessee did not respond to the notices issued by the AO. The AO, therefore, proceeded to complete the assessment on the basis of Best Judgment Assessment, after issuing show cause notice to the assessee. While completing the assessment under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B

Super Packagers, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer - 1(3)(4), Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh

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

ITA 132/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Subhash Malguria & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Super Packagers, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 80/72, Latouch Road, Ganga Oil Ward-1(3)(4), Kanpur 208001 Mill Compound, Kanpur-208001 Pan:Abtfs2620L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Puneet Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 10.12.2024, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed By The Ld. Ao Under Section 144 On 25.11.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts Of The Case In Passing The Impugned Order Dated 10/12/2024 Ex-Parte & Without Deciding The Appeal On Merits. 2. Learned Ao Has Erred In Law & On Facts Of The Case While Passing The Impugned Order Dated 25/11/2019 & Learned Cit(A) Has Upheld Because The Assessment In The Present Case Has Been Carried Out In Respect Of A Non-Existent Entity & Is Thus Void-Ab-Initio. 3. Because, The Present Case Being Of Dual Pan No. Abtfs2620L One Relating To Partnership Firm (Which Ceased To Exist From 01/04/2011) & The Other Relating To The Individual Person (Pan Aaqpj2279Q), Transaction Taken Place In The Bank With Respect To The Pan Of The Partnership Firm Having All Been Disclosed & Assessed In The Return Filed Under Pan Aaqpj2279Q. There Has Been No Escapement Of Income, The Addition Of Rs.93,90,793/- Made Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Puneet Kumar, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 2Section 250Section 69A

bank account and in the absence of any return being filed by the assessee, the ld. AO decided to adopt the process of best judgment assessment as contained in section 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961. In the course of his assessment order, the ld. AO records that he issued

Shivayya Tammayya Swami, Sangli vs. ITO Ward 2 Sangli, Sangli

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA

ITA 715/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva
Section 147Section 250

Coop. Credit Society Ltd., re-assessment proceedings u/s.147 were initiated followed by validly serving statutory notices. However, assessee failed to appear resulting into best judgment assessments by the ld. Assessing Officer making additions in the hands of assessee. Aggrieved with the additions assessee filed appeals before ld.CIT(A) but again ... dismissal of the appeals. 6. However, considering the prayer made by ld. Counsel for the assessee and observing that the assessment orders are best judgment assessments passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 of the Act, we in the larger interest of justice and being fair to both the parties deem it to restore

Shivayya Tammayya Swami, Sangli vs. ITO Ward 2 Sangli, Sangli

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA

ITA 714/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva
Section 147Section 250

Coop. Credit Society Ltd., re-assessment proceedings u/s.147 were initiated followed by validly serving statutory notices. However, assessee failed to appear resulting into best judgment assessments by the ld. Assessing Officer making additions in the hands of assessee. Aggrieved with the additions assessee filed appeals before ld.CIT(A) but again ... dismissal of the appeals. 6. However, considering the prayer made by ld. Counsel for the assessee and observing that the assessment orders are best judgment assessments passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 of the Act, we in the larger interest of justice and being fair to both the parties deem it to restore

Shivayya Tammayya Swami, Sangli vs. ITO Ward 2 Sangli, Sangli

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA

ITA 713/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva
Section 147Section 250

Coop. Credit Society Ltd., re-assessment proceedings u/s.147 were initiated followed by validly serving statutory notices. However, assessee failed to appear resulting into best judgment assessments by the ld. Assessing Officer making additions in the hands of assessee. Aggrieved with the additions assessee filed appeals before ld.CIT(A) but again ... dismissal of the appeals. 6. However, considering the prayer made by ld. Counsel for the assessee and observing that the assessment orders are best judgment assessments passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 of the Act, we in the larger interest of justice and being fair to both the parties deem it to restore

Shivayya Tammayya Swami, Sangli vs. ITO Ward 2 Sangli, Sangli

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA

ITA 712/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva
Section 147Section 250

Coop. Credit Society Ltd., re-assessment proceedings u/s.147 were initiated followed by validly serving statutory notices. However, assessee failed to appear resulting into best judgment assessments by the ld. Assessing Officer making additions in the hands of assessee. Aggrieved with the additions assessee filed appeals before ld.CIT(A) but again ... dismissal of the appeals. 6. However, considering the prayer made by ld. Counsel for the assessee and observing that the assessment orders are best judgment assessments passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 of the Act, we in the larger interest of justice and being fair to both the parties deem it to restore