← 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

Hemant Madhusudan Sheth, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Mumbai

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

ITA 4688/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT 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 4687/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

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 4686/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

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

Kiritbhai Bhikhabhai Patel, Na vs. Arivs.ITO, Ward-3, Navsari

In the result, both appeal of the assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 965/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.965/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Kiritbhai Bhikhabhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, बनाम/ 48, Paradi, Balak Valsad, Navsari, Room No.206, Income Vs. Navsari-396 475 Tax Officer, Char Pool, Awabaug, Navsari-396 445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Awspp 7295 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.830/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Navsari, Kiritbhai Bhikhabhai Patel बनाम/ Room No.206, Income Tax Officer, 48, Paradi, Arak Valsad, Vs. Char Pool, Awabaug, Navsari-396 Navsari-396 475 445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Awspp 7295 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 144Section 250Section 251(1)(a)

show cause notice in response to which assessee submitted a brief reply without any supporting evidence and proper explanation. Therefore, he has passed best judgment assessment order u/s 144 of the Act We find that all these details submitted before CIT(A) were additional evidences, which were never filed before

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Na vs. Ari, Navsarivs.Kiritbhai Bhikhabhai Patel, Navsari

In the result, both appeal of the assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 830/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.965/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Kiritbhai Bhikhabhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, बनाम/ 48, Paradi, Balak Valsad, Navsari, Room No.206, Income Vs. Navsari-396 475 Tax Officer, Char Pool, Awabaug, Navsari-396 445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Awspp 7295 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.830/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Navsari, Kiritbhai Bhikhabhai Patel बनाम/ Room No.206, Income Tax Officer, 48, Paradi, Arak Valsad, Vs. Char Pool, Awabaug, Navsari-396 Navsari-396 475 445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Awspp 7295 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 144Section 250Section 251(1)(a)

show cause notice in response to which assessee submitted a brief reply without any supporting evidence and proper explanation. Therefore, he has passed best judgment assessment order u/s 144 of the Act We find that all these details submitted before CIT(A) were additional evidences, which were never filed before

Income Tax Officer, Barabanki vs. Sateesh Kumar, Barabanki

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 274/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sateesh Kumar, Barabanki, U.P. H. No.9, Bhitariya, Ramsanehighat, H/O Baneekodar, Barabanki, U.P. Pan:Ctjpk3341N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 02.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 13.03.2004 Partly Allowing The Appeal Of The Assesseee Against The Assessment Made Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 24.09.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Are As Under:- “1. Because On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts While Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 77,96,530/- Under Section 69A Of The I.T Act 1961 By Suo-Moto Taking The Bank Deposits As Turnover & Estimating The Profit @ 8% Of Rs. 95,83,320/- Ignoring The Fact That The Assessee Has Not Furnished Complete Details Of Bank Deposits, The Same Is Added To The Total Income Of The Assessee As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The I.T. Act. 1961. 2. That The Order Of Cit (A), Being Erroneous In Law & In Facts Be Cancelled & The Order Of The Ao Be Restored. 3. Any Other Grounds Arose During The Proceedings Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. CIT
Section 115Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144(1)(b)Section 44ASection 69A

furnish details regarding his income, the provisions of section 144(1)(b) were being invoked to complete the proceedings as a best judgment assessment, after affording the assessee an opportunity with a show cause notice. The ld. AO pointed out that since the assessee had not filed a return

Karuppannan Kulandaivel, Karungaradu, Salem vs. Income Tax Officer - ITO Ward 1(8), Salem

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

ITA 371/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.371/Chny/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Vs Shri Karuppannan Kulandaivel, The Income Tax Officer, 2/4-898, Karungaradu, Ito Ward 1(8), Navapatty (Po), Mettur Taluk, Salem. Salem – 636 452. Pan : Anwpk 1060F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Srivatsan Ranganathan, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Keerthi Narayanan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per S R Raghunatha, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 26.12.2024 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Has Not Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2011- 12. As Per Information, The Assessee Has Transactions In His Savings

For Appellant: Shri Srivatsan Ranganathan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT
Section 144Section 148Section 69A

notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued. Though AO had issued several notices, the assessee remained non-compliant and hence, the AO passed best judgment assessment u/s.144 of the Act by adding the entire cash deposits of Rs.27,49,000/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. Aggrieved

Laxminarayan Malani, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-4(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 315/HYD/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Apr 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA Sridhar JhawarFor Respondent: Shri Srikanth Reddy Y. Sr. AR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 251(1)(a)

Revenue, on the other hand, supporting the order of the learned CIT(A) submitted that, the Assessing Officer passed best judgment assessment order when the assessee has not filed return of income u/sec.148 of the Act. Further the Assessing Officer has considered relevant details filed by the assessee and stated ... parties, perused the material on record and gone through the orders of the 6 ITA.No.315/Hyd./2025 authorities below. The Assessing Officer passed best judgment assessment order u/sec.144 r.w.s.147 of the Act on the ground that the assessee has not filed return of income in response to notice u/sec.148

Rakesh Kumar, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bhilai, Durg

ITA 140/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 140/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(3)Section 250Section 69A

Rs.1.61 Crores. However, the assessee had not filed any Income Tax Return in compliance to the notice u/s 148. Accordingly, best judgment assessment u/s 144 was carried out by the Ld. AO, and in absence of any explanation or compliance by the assessee an addition

Navratan Jewellers, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Raipur

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

ITA 127/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 127/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri B. Subramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 147Section 250Section 251(1)(a)

appellant. The legislative intent behind granting such power to the CIT(A), as explained in the memorandum, is to address cases where the best judgment assessments are made due to non-responsiveness to the letters/Notices issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer. In the appellant's case, this rationale ... proviso to Section 251(1) of the Act has remanded the matter back to the file of the A.O. because of best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the Act, however, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee expressed his view and submitted that for the interest of justice, it would

Kailashkumar Jain & Sons (HUF), Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-5(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 466/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 465 & 466/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2017-18 & 2018-19 M/S. Kailashkumar Jain & Sons The Income Tax Officer, (Huf), Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 5(1), No.52, Ground Floor, Chennai. General Muthiah Street, Elephant Gate, Sowcarpet, Chennai – 600 079. Pan: Aaghk 9839R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gowthami Manivasagam,Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gowthami Manivasagam,JCIT
Section 144Section 250

view that assessee ought to be provided with one more opportunity to represent its case. Since the proceedings before the AO is also best judgment assessment, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the files of the AO. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the files

Kailashkumar Jain & Sons (HUF), Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-5(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 465/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 465 & 466/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2017-18 & 2018-19 M/S. Kailashkumar Jain & Sons The Income Tax Officer, (Huf), Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 5(1), No.52, Ground Floor, Chennai. General Muthiah Street, Elephant Gate, Sowcarpet, Chennai – 600 079. Pan: Aaghk 9839R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gowthami Manivasagam,Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gowthami Manivasagam,JCIT
Section 144Section 250

view that assessee ought to be provided with one more opportunity to represent its case. Since the proceedings before the AO is also best judgment assessment, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the files of the AO. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the files

Balamahendran, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-8(1), Chennai

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

ITA 417/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 417/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 Shri Balamahendran, The Income Tax Officer, No.19/4/2, Anantharama Krishnan Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 8(1), Street, Saligramam, Chennai Chennai – 600 093. Pan: Airpb 2962R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. B. Agnus Jennifer, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gowthami Manivasagam,Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.04.2025

For Appellant: Ms. B. Agnus Jennifer, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gowthami Manivasagam,JCIT
Section 144Section 250

files of the AO as a last opportunity for proper representation of his case, since the order passed by the AO is also best judgment assessment. 5. The Ld.DR submitted that adequate opportunities were provided from the offices of the AO and the CIT(A) and there is no violation ... view that assessee ought to be provided with one more opportunity to represent its case. Since the proceedings before the AO is also best judgment assessment, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the files of the AO. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the files

Om Prakash Sharma, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-7(2), Jaipur

ITA 258/JPR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA. No. 258/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2009-10 Shri Om Prakash Sharma 1, N.H. 8, Sanskar Bharti P.G. College Bagru 303 007 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The ITO, Ward-7(2), Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: BWKPS 4112 G अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri S.B. Natani, CA राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by :Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT -DR

For Appellant: Shri S.B. Natani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT -DR a
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

only in respect of the profit. vii.Brij Bhushan Lal Parduman Kumar Vs. CIT (1978) 115 ITR 524 (SC) “The authority making a best judgment assessment must make an honest and fair estimate of the income of the assessee, same must not be capricious but should have a reasonable nexus

Duraiswamy Subramanian, Coimbatore vs. Income Tax Officer, Coimbatore

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

ITA 401/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri N. Subramanian, ITP(Rtd.)For Respondent: Ms. Gowthami Manivasagam,JCIT
Section 144Section 250

view that assessee ought to be provided with one more opportunity to represent its case. Since the proceedings before the AO is also best judgment assessment, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the files of the AO. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the files

Assistant Commissioner of Incometax, Exemptions, Circle, Pune vs. Shree Warana Vibhag Shikshan Mandal, Warnanagar

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 987/PUN/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 80G

report has not been received. 6.3 When an appellant does not respond to notices calling for information, the AO is entitled to make best judgment assessment. However an assessment under section 144 cannot be arbitrary. It has to be reasonable and wellinformed. An adhoc disallowance of expenses is not justified ... even 5 ITA No.987/PUN/2024, AY 2017-18 under a best judgment assessment. Such a disallowance is a spiteful act and not a fair assessment of income. Therefore disallowance of Rs.8,74,57,590, being ad hoc disallowance of 20% of the revenue expenses, is deleted, Reliance is placed

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ichalkaranji vs. Sanjay Ghodawat Buildcon LLP, Chipri

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

ITA 1337/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1337/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Arvind DesaiFor Respondent: Shri Prashanth GS
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 263Section 40Section 46A(3)Section 57

remaining amount to the extent of interest income. But thereafter assessee did not filed any reply and ld. AO had to pass the best judgment assessment u/s.144 r.w.s.263 of the Act and added the income from interest at Rs.4,90,58,992/- under the head “Income from other sources

Chandrakala Narala, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 2575/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri. Pranit Tanna, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 282ASection 69A

response. A show cause notice was issued to the asessee on 15.11.2023 which was served upon the assessee proposing to pass best judgment assessment under section 144 of the Act, inspite of that, there was no compliance. Accordingly, the AO treated the entire cash deposit made into her bank account

Mahmad Atik Farukmiya Sheikh, Valsad vs. Income Tax Officer- Ward (5), Valsad

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

ITA 819/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.819/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Mahmad Atik Farukmiya Sheikh, Vs. The Ito, Masjid Faliya Dehali, Dhagadmal, Ward – 5, Valsad - 396126 Valsad "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Duaps5433Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/04/2025

Section 115BSection 253(3)Section 69A

which were not compiled with. The assessee also failed to furnish required details as called for. In absence of details, the AO passed ‘best judgment assessment’ u/s 144(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee had failed to furnish details of business activities, nature of income earned, details of bank

Deva Educational Trust, Thanjavur vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-1, Chennai

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

ITA 313/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms.T.V.Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 11Section 11(6)Section 144

notices and requesting to furnish the details, the AO completed the assessment u/s.144 of the Act by passing an order dated 21.12.2016 as best judgment assessment with the material available on record. Aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 7 years 7 months