“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

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

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

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

Pratik Shah, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bhilai, Durg

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of over aforesaid observations

ITA 224/RPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. /Ita No. 224/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144(1)Section 250Section 69A

gather the information have initiated action u/s 133(6), have collected the information from the concerned bank and have completed the assessment under best judgment assessment following the manner provided u/s 144(1) of the Act. Another addition was made qua the credit entries in the bank accounts

Padma Ravvi, Mahbubnagar vs. ITO., Ward-1, Mahbubnagar

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

ITA 64/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Praveen, Sr. AR

Section 147Section 148

furnished any evidences to substantiate her source for cash deposit in bank account. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had no option, but, to pass best judgment assessment order u/sec.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act vide order dated 11.02.2022 and determined the total income of assessee at Rs.1

Sattarbhai Sulemanbhai Mansuri, Sabarkantha vs. The ITO, Ward-3, Himatnagar

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 469/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2014-15 Mr.Sattarbhai Sulemanbhai Mansuri Ito,Ward-3 Anjumarstrit Narth Gulam Floor Factri Vs. Himatnagar. Sarvoday Soc, Polo Ground Himatnagar Sabarkantha 383 001. (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Varis Isani, Advocate Assessee By : Shri Ravindra, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra, Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 50C(2)

kindly be reverse addition made as long term capital gain of Rs.22,02,858/- (u/s. 50C of the IT Act). 2. Ex-parte best judgment assessment order passed u/s. 143 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. Reopening of the assessment

Sushila Devi Jangid, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD 7(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 374/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA. No. 374/JP/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2010-11 Smt. Sushila Devi Jangid 65, Koshaliya Vihar Hajyawala,Muhana Mandi Ke Pass, Sanganer, Jaipur 302 029 बनाम Vs. The ITO Ward 7(2) Jaipur अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AFMPJ 2091 P निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Utkarsh Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by :Shri Gautam Sing

For Appellant: Shri Utkarsh Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT -DR a

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 250

held that --- Where Assessing Officer issued statutory show cause notices to assessee at e-mail address which was not in use, impugned best judgment assessment order deserved to be set aside. It was further held that Assessing Officer was to be given liberty to pass fresh assessment order after issuance ... remanded back for fresh consideration. 5. It is further submitted that it is a trite in law that while making the best judgment assessment, the assessing officer should try to make an estimate or should reach the conclusion without any bias and that the assessment should be made on rational

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Radiance Realty Developers India Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee as

ITA 2984/CHNY/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.T.Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Shivanand K Kalakeri, CIT

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 43C

appellant and net profit rate of 8% on the contract received of Rs.22,49,83,589/-. While affirming the best judgment assessment and after detailed discussion and reference to various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, different High Courts and Tribunal in paragraphs 11 to 20 of its order, concluded

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Radiance Realty Developers India Ltd., Chennai

ITA 2983/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.T.Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Shivanand K Kalakeri, CIT

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 43C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'ए 'न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH: CHENNΑΙ श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Radiance Realty Developers India Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee as

ITA 2981/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.T.Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Shivanand K Kalakeri, CIT

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 43C

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Radiance Realty Developers India Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee as

ITA 2980/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.T.Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Shivanand K Kalakeri, CIT

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 43C

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Radiance Realty Developers India Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee as

ITA 2979/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.T.Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Shivanand K Kalakeri, CIT

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 43C

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Radiance Realty Developers India Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee as

ITA 2978/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.T.Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Shivanand K Kalakeri, CIT

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 43C

Radiance Realty Developers India Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Central Circle 2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee as

ITA 2972/CHNY/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.T.Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Shivanand K Kalakeri, CIT

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 43C

Radiance Realty Developers India Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Central Circle 2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee as

ITA 2971/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.T.Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Shivanand K Kalakeri, CIT

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 43C

Jai Maa Durga Traders, Ballia vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department

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

ITA 124/ALLD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad01 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Subhash Malguria & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Jai Maa Durga Traders, Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Ballia (Appeals), Income Tax Department Pan:Aagfj8468H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Kumar Ankit Srivastava, Adv Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.05.2025 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 Dated 20.05.2024 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee. The Grounds Of Appeal Filed By The Assessee Are Detailed & Run Into 16 Pages. Accordingly, For Reasons Of Brevity, The Grounds Of Appeal Are Not Being Reproduced In The Order But The Essence Of The Grounds Are That The Unilateral Order In Question Was Excessive, Illegal & Without Justice & That The Complete Details Of Inward Supplies & Outward Supplies Received By The Assessee In The Relevant Year Had Been Submitted, The Accounts Had Been Audited & Audit Report Uploaded On The Portal. The Firm Had Erroneously Been Allotted A Second Pan In The F.Y. 2011-12 On Application For Duplicate Pan & This Second Pan Had Been Furnished To The Bank While The Itr & Tax Audit Report Had Been Submitted On The Existing Pan. As A Result Of This, An Impression Had Been Created That There Were Unexplained Deposits In The Bank Account But The Fact Is That All The Deposits Were 1 Jai Maa Durga Traders A.Y. 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Kumar Ankit Srivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 44A

under section 142(1). However, the assessee did not respond to those notices and therefore, the ld. AO completed the assessment as a best judgment assessment. 4. Aggrieved with this order, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), it was argued that ... assesse. Hence, the challenge to the orders on technical grounds i.e. for issuance of notice under section 148 and for completion of best judgment assessment under section 144 are dismissed. However, when we come to the facts of the case, we find that the assessee by his own admission

Ambis Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2129/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Ambis Technologies P Ltd The Ito, C/O.Divyang J. Shah Vs Ward-1(1)(1) 201, 2Nd Floor, Devashish Complex Ahmedabad. Nr.Regenta Central Antarim Hotel Off Cg Road, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aalca 0742 K (Applicant) (Responent) : None Assessee By : Ms.Bhavnasingh Gupta, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Ms.Bhavnasingh Gupta, Sr.DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 270A

short adjournment. 6. We have perused the records. It is noted that the assessment order under challenge is an ex parte best judgment assessment passed under section 147 read with section 144 of the Act. The learned CIT(A), exercising powers under the amended provisions of section

ITO Ward-1, Kolar vs. Sayedsaleem Sayedriyazahmed Savanur, Kolar

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

ITA 1479/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri K. Yathish, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

department is in appeal before this Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing, the Ld.DR submitted that the assessment is a best judgment assessment made u/s. 144 of the Act in which the assessee had not submitted any details about the deposit of cash into his bank account

Agashi Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Agashi, Virar vs. AO, Ward 4(1), Thane

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

ITA 1683/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SHRI. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Dnyanesh PatadeFor Respondent: Shri. Ram Krishn Kedia (SR. DR.)

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 270ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

several opportunities and hence, the ld. AO passed the assessment order dated 22.04.2021 u/s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act being the best judgment assessment thereby disallowing the deduction claimed by the assessee of Rs. 55,80,035/- u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act and treated the same under

Jayesh Jadavji Thakkar, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 3(2)(1), Surat

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

ITA 930/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.930/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Jayesh Jadavji Thakkar, Vs. The Ito, 402, Paradise Apartment, Mahadev Ward - 3(2)(1), Faliu, Katargam, Surat - 395004 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ajmpt4689H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2025

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 253(3)Section 69A

file any explanation with the source of total cash deposits. In absence of proper details and explanation, the AO had passed ‘best judgment assessment’ u/s 144 of the Act. The AO also relied on the decision in cases of (i) Pawan Kumar Pareek vs. ITO, 2010-TIOL

Ritika Jain, Thane vs. ITO(It Tp), Bhopal, Aaykar Bhavan

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 632/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshiritika Jain, Cit (Appeals), बना A-504, Laxmi Residency Chs Nfac, म/ Ltd, Delhi Vs. Opposite Datta Mandir Check Naka, Wagle Estate, Thane

Section 142(1)Section 144CSection 148Section 148ASection 250Section 253

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

Hemant Madhusudan Sheth, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed in limine

ITA 4732/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Ajit Pal Singh, SR. DR

Section 144Section 250Section 69A

learned Assessing Officer (ld. A.O. for short) passed the assessment order u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 05.11.2019 being the best judgment assessment, determining total income at Rs. 7,32,03,585/- after making an addition u/s. 69A of the Act as unexplained money

Hemant Madhusudan Sheth, Mumbai vs. ACIT Central Circle 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed in limine

ITA 4689/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Ajit Pal Singh, SR. DR

Section 144Section 250Section 69A