← 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

Abdul Shukoor Sakira Banu, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Corp. Circle, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1080/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.B. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Mr.Bipin C.N., CIT
Section 144Section 148

assessee couldn’t file the relevant documents to substantiate her claim, which led to passing of the assessment order u/s.144 of the Act (best judgment assessment) which fact is discernable from the caption of the assessment order dated 26.03.2024. The AO is noted to have made an addition

Vijay Kumar Chawla, Ulhasnagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2), Kalyan

ITA 7948/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Arun Khodpia, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Makhija and MsFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 270A

opposed the contentions of the Ld. AR, stating that the assessee was a persistent non-compliant before both the authorities below, leading to best judgment assessment u/s 144 and again an ex-parte order by the CIT(A), so any contention which was never raised / examined by the revenue authorities

Vijay Kumar Chawla, Ulhasnagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2), Kalyan

ITA 7947/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Arun Khodpia, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Makhija and MsFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 270A

opposed the contentions of the Ld. AR, stating that the assessee was a persistent non-compliant before both the authorities below, leading to best judgment assessment u/s 144 and again an ex-parte order by the CIT(A), so any contention which was never raised / examined by the revenue authorities

Vijay Kumar Chawla, Ulhasnagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2), Kalyan

ITA 7946/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Arun Khodpia, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Makhija and MsFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 270A

opposed the contentions of the Ld. AR, stating that the assessee was a persistent non-compliant before both the authorities below, leading to best judgment assessment u/s 144 and again an ex-parte order by the CIT(A), so any contention which was never raised / examined by the revenue authorities

Balika Subhash Pawar, Munshiwada, Killa Road Mahal vs. DCIT/ACIT Cencir 1(1), Nag, Aayakar Bhavan, Telankhedi Road, Civil Lines, Nagpur

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

ITA 738/NAG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Anand Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 250Section 69A

Bhavani Bullion Touch, owned by the assessee’s husband. It is further submitted that assessment orders have been passed exparte as best judgment assessments u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act and therefore, if an opportunity is granted, then all relevant documents exhibiting accounting of the alleged transactions ... been e-filed along with income tax returns. However, since the assessee failed to respond to the notices issued by the Ld. JAO, best judgment assessment has been framed. 6. Considering the contentions of the learned counsel for the assessee along with details placed in the paper book and also

Balika Subhash Pawar, Munshiwada, Killa Road Mahal vs. DCIT/ACIT Cencir 1(1), Nag, Aayakar Bhavan, Telankhedi Road, Civil Lines, Nagpur

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

ITA 737/NAG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Anand Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 250Section 69A

Bhavani Bullion Touch, owned by the assessee’s husband. It is further submitted that assessment orders have been passed exparte as best judgment assessments u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act and therefore, if an opportunity is granted, then all relevant documents exhibiting accounting of the alleged transactions ... been e-filed along with income tax returns. However, since the assessee failed to respond to the notices issued by the Ld. JAO, best judgment assessment has been framed. 6. Considering the contentions of the learned counsel for the assessee along with details placed in the paper book and also

Trupti Amol Giri, Amravati vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Amravati

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 663/NAG/2025[2019 - 2020]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2026

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

cash payment of ₹ 3,40,000/- on 20.10.2018. The assessee was unable to make submissions before the Ld.AO resulting into passing of best judgment assessment and addition of ₹ 3,40,000/- made in the hands of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved with the impugned addition, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT

Onkarprasad Madhukar Funde, Chandrapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Chandrapur

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

ITA 657/NAG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 250Section 56

registered sale deed, assessee has been issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act. However, due to non-compliance by the assessee, best judgment assessment framed and the addition for unexplained investment at ₹ 5,00,000/- being consideration paid by the assessee as well as the difference in the fair market

Shri Samarth Sotafir Maharaj Bigar Sheti Gramin Sahakari Pat Sanstha, Teosa vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 5, Amravati

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

ITA 551/NAG/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

accounts of the assessee society were not audited, deduction u/s. 80P of the Act was also denied. Assessment order has been passed as best judgment assessment u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. Before the Ld.CIT(A) also, assessee failed to respond and when assessee sought adjournment

Gaurav Rajan Ghoota, G-4, Sai Kuteer Apartments, Thanisandra Main Road vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5(3)(2), Hmt Building Bangalore

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

ITA 2186/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Amaranath, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing
Section 144Section 144BSection 147

assessment was completed under section 144 read with section 147 and section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by making a best judgment assessment. The Assessing Officer brought to tax the entire Page 2 of 4 gross salary and interest income and disallowed deductions and exemptions claimed in Form

Rakesh Jain As the Legal Heir of Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-1 Palghar, Mumbai

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 7677/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 7674/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 2. Ita No. 7675/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 3. Ita No. 7676/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. Ita No. 7677/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rakesh Jain As Legal Ito Ward-1, Heir Of Bhawarlal Shrilal Bidco Road, Jain, Vs. Palghar, Shop 5, Vaibhav Complex, Maharashtra – Irani Road, Malyan, 401 404 Dahanu Road, Thane – 401602, Maharashtra. Pan/Gir No. Abjpj5270F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am: These Four Appeals Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], All Dated 26.09.2025 & 18.09.2025, For Assessment Year 2013– 14. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Arise Out Of The Same Set Of Facts & Relate To Proceedings Initiated In The Name Of Late Shri Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 159Section 271FSection 69A

issued under section 142(1), the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment under section 144.A show cause notice dated 31.08.2021 for best judgment assessment was also issued. 5. It was recorded by the Assessing Officer that the returns of income for Assessment Years

Rakesh Jain As the Legal Heir of Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward -1 Palghar, Thane

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 7676/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 7674/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 2. Ita No. 7675/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 3. Ita No. 7676/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. Ita No. 7677/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rakesh Jain As Legal Ito Ward-1, Heir Of Bhawarlal Shrilal Bidco Road, Jain, Vs. Palghar, Shop 5, Vaibhav Complex, Maharashtra – Irani Road, Malyan, 401 404 Dahanu Road, Thane – 401602, Maharashtra. Pan/Gir No. Abjpj5270F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am: These Four Appeals Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], All Dated 26.09.2025 & 18.09.2025, For Assessment Year 2013– 14. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Arise Out Of The Same Set Of Facts & Relate To Proceedings Initiated In The Name Of Late Shri Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 159Section 271FSection 69A

issued under section 142(1), the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment under section 144.A show cause notice dated 31.08.2021 for best judgment assessment was also issued. 5. It was recorded by the Assessing Officer that the returns of income for Assessment Years

Rakesh Jain As the Legal Heir of Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 1 Palghar, Thane

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 7675/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 7674/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 2. Ita No. 7675/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 3. Ita No. 7676/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. Ita No. 7677/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rakesh Jain As Legal Ito Ward-1, Heir Of Bhawarlal Shrilal Bidco Road, Jain, Vs. Palghar, Shop 5, Vaibhav Complex, Maharashtra – Irani Road, Malyan, 401 404 Dahanu Road, Thane – 401602, Maharashtra. Pan/Gir No. Abjpj5270F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am: These Four Appeals Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], All Dated 26.09.2025 & 18.09.2025, For Assessment Year 2013– 14. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Arise Out Of The Same Set Of Facts & Relate To Proceedings Initiated In The Name Of Late Shri Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 159Section 271FSection 69A

issued under section 142(1), the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment under section 144.A show cause notice dated 31.08.2021 for best judgment assessment was also issued. 5. It was recorded by the Assessing Officer that the returns of income for Assessment Years

Rakesh Jain As the Legal Heir of Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 1, Palghar, Thane

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 7674/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 7674/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 2. Ita No. 7675/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 3. Ita No. 7676/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. Ita No. 7677/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rakesh Jain As Legal Ito Ward-1, Heir Of Bhawarlal Shrilal Bidco Road, Jain, Vs. Palghar, Shop 5, Vaibhav Complex, Maharashtra – Irani Road, Malyan, 401 404 Dahanu Road, Thane – 401602, Maharashtra. Pan/Gir No. Abjpj5270F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am: These Four Appeals Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], All Dated 26.09.2025 & 18.09.2025, For Assessment Year 2013– 14. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Arise Out Of The Same Set Of Facts & Relate To Proceedings Initiated In The Name Of Late Shri Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 159Section 271FSection 69A

issued under section 142(1), the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment under section 144.A show cause notice dated 31.08.2021 for best judgment assessment was also issued. 5. It was recorded by the Assessing Officer that the returns of income for Assessment Years

Norma Joseph Baptista, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 24 (3) (1), Piramal Chamber, Mumbai

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

ITA 7297/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Ms. Norma Joseph Baptista, Income Tax Officer, 65, Gauthan Lane, Opp Radio Club, Ward 24(3)(1) Vs. Andheri West, Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 058 Mumbai – 400 012 Pan:Aflpb0834K (Appellant) (Respondent) :

For Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

deposits. As there was no compliance by the assessee the Ld. AO passed the assessment order u/s 144 of the Act being the best judgment assessment vide order dated 19.12.2019 determining the total income at Rs.1,12,32,500/- after making an addition on the impugned amount

Zeliant Corp, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 36(1), Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above

ITA 2201/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144(1)(b)Section 144ASection 153(1)Section 2(31)Section 2(31)(iv)Section 250Section 282Section 69A

accounts like balance sheet, profit & loss account and other supporting documents were filed by the assessee. The assessing officer proceeded to pass the best judgment assessment u/s 144A of the Act. After notice issuing to the Bank Manager of ICICI bank, the bank statement was procured wherein the huge cash

Karunesh Kumar Shukla, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Lucknow

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

ITA 668/LKW/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Sh. Samrat Chandra, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Koushlendra Tiwari, CIT DR
Section 144Section 148Section 69Section 69A

level of the ld. AO or at the level of the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, there was no mistake in the best judgment assessment conducted by the ld. AO and in the dismissal of the appeal by the ld. CIT(A). He, therefore, prayed that the orders may be confirmed

Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Company Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Hyderbad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

ITA 2272/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Mohan KumarFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandi P, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

absence of the prosecution of the appeal before him had summarily approved the addition of Rs.80,20,933/- and upheld the best judgment assessment framed by the AO under section 144 of the Act. ITA No.2271, 2272, 2282 & 2283/Hyd/2025 APMDC SCCL Suliyari Coal Company Limited vs. DCIT 15. We have

Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Company Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

ITA 2271/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Mohan KumarFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandi P, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

absence of the prosecution of the appeal before him had summarily approved the addition of Rs.80,20,933/- and upheld the best judgment assessment framed by the AO under section 144 of the Act. ITA No.2271, 2272, 2282 & 2283/Hyd/2025 APMDC SCCL Suliyari Coal Company Limited vs. DCIT 15. We have

Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Company Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

ITA 1529/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Mohan KumarFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandi P, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

absence of the prosecution of the appeal before him had summarily approved the addition of Rs.80,20,933/- and upheld the best judgment assessment framed by the AO under section 144 of the Act. ITA No.2271, 2272, 2282 & 2283/Hyd/2025 APMDC SCCL Suliyari Coal Company Limited vs. DCIT 15. We have