← 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

Shree Samarth Constructions, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Deslhi

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

ITA 3369/MUM/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am Shree Samarth Constructions National Faceless Assessment Centre Room No. 7, Indira Nagar Kishan, North Block, Delhi-110 001 No.2 Opp. Balasara Co. Wagle Estate, Vs. Thane (W), Thane-400 604

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram - Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Shambhu Yadav
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

assessment proceeding. The ld. A.O. then passed the assessment order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 23.03.2022 on best judgment assessment, thereby determining 3 Shree Samarth Constructions vs. NFAC the total income at Rs.3,61,92,000/- after making the impugned additions

M/S. Tiles Gallery, Shivamogga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Shivmoga

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

ITA 1244/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri V. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 246ASection 250

suggestion of Sri. Ravisha P G, approached the present counsel and explained the entire facts and circumstances leading to passing of best judgment assessment order by the learned assessing officer and also ex-parte order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals]. Further, Petitioner / Appellant explained that there

Florida Shoe (Since Dissolved on 31.03.2015), Vellore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Vellore

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

ITA 252/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.252/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S.Florida Shoe, The Ito, (Since Dissolved On 31.03.2015), Ward-2, No.77, M.C.Road, Vellore. Madanur, Vellore-635 804. [Pan: Aabff 6775 C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Anandh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 115BSection 144Section 148Section 69A

which obviously couldn’t be served upon the assessee, because, as noted it was dissolved. And finding no response, the AO passed the best judgment assessment u/s.144 of the Act adding an income of Rs.24,87,230/- u/s.69A/69C of the Act and taxed u/s.115BBE of the Act. 5. Aggrieved ... served upon the assessee and therefore, assessee obviously couldn’t place relevant facts before the AO and consequently, the AO passed best judgment assessment u/s.144 of the Act. Therefore, the Ld.AR prayed that since assessee didn’t get proper opportunity before the AO, relying on the decision

Kundarapalli Narashiman Natarajan, Krishnagiri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Krishnagiri

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

ITA 1800/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1800/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 Shri Kundarapalli Narashiman The Income Tax Officer, Natarajan, Vs. Ward-1, No.144, Madras Road New Pet, Krishnagiri. Krishnagiri – 635 001. Pan: Aempn 8708C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman, F.C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar,Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi In Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1064419040 (1) Dated 29.04.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18 U/S.147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 24.03.2022. 2. The Common Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is As Regards To Estimating Income By Applying Profit Rate Of 8% By Treating The Deposits Made As Turnover For An Amount Of Rs.13,20,33,640/-And Also Addition Made By Ao Of Cash Deposits Made During Demonetization Period In Specified Bank Notes Amounting To Rs.1,65,28,590/- Added U/S.69A R.W.S. 115Bbe Of The Act Without Providing Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee & Also The Order Of Cit(A)-Nfac Is Dismissal For Default On The Part Of The Assessee & No Adjudication On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman, F.C.A ""For Respondent: Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar,CIT
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 69A

assessee and no adjudication on merits. 3. At the outset, the ld.AR for the assessee stated that the assessment is 144 assessment i.e., best judgment assessment and assessee was not provided reasonable opportunity of being heard and moreover, the CIT(A)-NFAC dismissed the appeal for default without speaking ... default in simpliciter and no adjudication on merits, even otherwise the order of AO is also ex-parte and passed u/s.144 as best judgment assessment u/s.144 of the Act, in the facts of the case, we feel that one more opportunity be provided to assessee to substantiate his case before

D. Suresh, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Namakkal

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

ITA 1799/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman, F.C.A ""For Respondent: Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar,CIT
Section 144

observations herein-above.” The ld.AR also stated that the assessment framed by AO is ex-parte u/s.144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act and best judgment assessment framed without providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 3. When these facts were confronted to ld.CIT-DR, he took us through ... order of CIT(A)-NFAC is dismissal for default and not decided on merits. We also noted that the assessment order is best judgment assessment u/s.144 of the Act and the AO has allowed several opportunities but the assessee is totally non-cooperative and careless. In the interest of justice

Kandasamy Rajagopal, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Thiruchengode

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

ITA 1798/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman, F.C.A ""For Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar,CIT
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

also served but no response. Hence the AO has no other alternative except to frame assessment ex-parte u/s.144 i.e, best judgment assessment based on material available with him. As regards to the order of CIT(A)-NFAC, the ld.CIT-DR stated that the CIT(A)-NFAC has passed ... have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the assessment order is best judgment assessment u/s.144 of the Act and the AO has allowed six opportunities to submit the details but the assessee is totally non-cooperative and careless. Similarly even before

Krishnan Rajesh, Madurai vs. ITO, Ncw-3(2), Madurai

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

ITA 1627/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1627/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 V. Shri Krishnan Rajesh, The Ito, 112/15A, Fifty Feet Road, Ncw-3(2), Sellur, Madurai. Madurai – 625 002. [Pan: Amvpr 9348 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT
Section 144

noted, the Ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order as well as the AO has passed an ex-parte order (best judgment assessment u/s.144 of Shri Krishnan Rajesh :: 3 :: the Income Tax Act, 1961). According to the Ld.AR, the assessee was running a bakery and had filed his return ... entrusted with the case due to reasons beyond his control, couldn’t appear before the AO which resulted in him passing the best judgment assessment without hearing the assessee. Therefore, he pleaded that proper opportunity be granted to the assessee before the AO. We find from the perusal

Prakash Ishwaradas Suhanda, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-27(2)(5), Mumbai

ITA 3350/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Venugopal C. NairFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 251

present Appeal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph no. 2 above. 6. Learned Authorised Representative for the Appellant appearing before us submitted that best judgment assessment was framed on the Appellant since the Appellant did not have any knowledge of the reassessment proceedings. It was submitted that the 2 Assessment

Mrs Puja Chander, Port Blair vs. ITO, Ward-3(4), Port Blair

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

ITA 264/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 6Section 69A

parte assessment order under section 144 of the Income Tax Act. This section authorizes the ld. Assessing Officer to pass a best judgment assessment. The ld. Assessing Officer found that there were four Bank accounts, two Allahabad Bank, Port Blair Branch and two SBI Bank, Dollygunj Branch and Port Blair ... travelled to the accounts of Indian Oil, but he has not made any analytical exercise, which was expected from him while passing a best judgment assessment. The law does not authorize him to punish an assessee in the garb of passing an ex-parte order. Taking into consideration the facts

Uma Shanker Sharma, Vrindavan, Mathura vs. ITO, Ward 2, ITO WD Two, Bharatpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 914/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Board (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

Shanker Sharma vs.ITO “1. That on the facts and in law, the impugned order passed by the learned CIT (A) sustaining the relevant 'Best Judgment Assessment Order' dated 26/11/2019 passed without jurisdiction by the AO u/s. 147/144 on the total income of Rs. 12,81,700/- is without jurisdiction, unjust ... cash in hand at around Rs. 4,50,000/- as on 01/04/2011 and thereafter the Id. CIT(A) further erred in sustaining the best judgment assessment order passed whimsically by the AO treating cash amount of Rs. 12,81,700/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A and deeming it as income

ITO-19(3)(1, Mumbai vs. Rajesh Ganeshlal Jain, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 2242/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT, D/R
Section 144

were neither attended by the assessee nor by his authorized representative, therefore, the AO was left with no choice but to frame a best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the Act. 5.1. On the basis of information received by the AO from DGIT (Inv.) Mumbai, the AO came to learn

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nagpur vs. M/S. Gondwan A Engineers Ltd, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 420/NAG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 8Section 801ASection 801A(4)Section 80ASection 80I

assessee will run the risk of a penalty under section 14(4); iii) the assessee will also run the risk of a best judgment assessment under section 16(4); In the present case, the Assessing Authority has neither levied a penalty nor made a best judgment assessment. The assessment orders

Konizerla Sri Tilak Pacs, Krishna Dist vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(5), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 136/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.136/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Konizerla Sri Tilak Pacs, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 1-126 Konizerla, Penugolanu Ward-3(5), Post, Gampalagudem Mandal, Vijayawada. Krishna District, Andhr Pradesh. Pan: Aabak2512K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 18/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 14/08/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Sri Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 270ASection 271FSection 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

verification of the information furnished and evidences filed as above, the Ld. AO completed the assessment U/s. 144 of the Act as best judgment assessment based on the material available on record. While completing the assessment, the Ld. AO observed that the assessee’s claim is not acceptable in view

Laxmaiah Enuguri, Gadwal vs. ITO., Ward-1, Mahbubnagar

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

ITA 359/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad12 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.359/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Laxmaiah Enuguri Vs. Income Tax Officer Gadwal Ward – 1 Pan:Aanpe9766E Mahaboobnagar (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Mohd.Afzal, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/08/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Mohd.Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 144B

144B of the I.T. Act, 1961 was issued on 3.2.2022. The assessee remained non-responsive. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under “best judgment assessment” and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,67,88,930/-. 3. In appeal, the learned CIT (A) dismissed the appeal filed

Deen Dayal Medical and Educational Trust, Thiruvallur vs. Addl. CIT, Chennai

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

ITA 3331/CHNY/2016[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Aug 2024

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 12A

under:- 5. Having heard both the parties and after perusal of the records, we note that the AO has passed an ex parte / best judgment assessment u/s.144 of the Act. It is noted that the Managing Trustee of the assessee Trust, Shri T.D.Naidu, was the key person, who was running

Ram Kumar Gupta, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 43, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 309/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.309/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ram Kumar Gupta…...…………….....……………………....………....Appellant 67/46, Posta Chowrasta, Kolkata -700007. [Pan: Adrpg8556B] Vs. Acit, Circle-43, Kolkata…...................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rajiva Kumar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit- Dr On Behalf Of P. P. Barman, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 09, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.12.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.1,10,46,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Cash Deposits In The Bank Account Of The Assessee During Demonetization Period. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Derives Income From Retail Trading In The Name Of M/S R. Kumar & Co. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 28.07.2017 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.8,19,420/-. The Return Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices U/S

Section 250Section 44ASection 68

Kunwarji Ananda Vs. CIT (1931) 5 ITC 417, GIT Vs. Ranicherra Tea (1994) 207 ITR 979}. 1.16 In case of a best judgment assessment "the AO should not be influenced by a desire to punish the assessee for default which attracts the operation of this section, however culpable such default

Ankit Sharma, Tulsidas Marg, Barwani (M.P.) vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Sendhwa, Aayakar Bhawan, A.B. Road, Sendhwa, District-Barwani

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 246/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Indore09 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2015-16 Shri Ankit Sharma, Income-Tax Officer, 5,Tulsidas Marg, Ward Sendhwa, Gali No. 1, Distt. Barwani बनाम/ Ward No. 20, Vs. Barwani. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Hgzps8737L Assessee By Shri Kunal Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.08.2024

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

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

Satyavathi Golkonda, Machilipatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Machilipatnam

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

ITA 219/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 219/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Satyavathi Golkonda, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mig-102, Old Aphb Colony, Aayakar Bhavan, Paraspet, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, Machilipatnam, Andhra Pradesh – 521001. Andhra Pradesh-521001. Pan: Attpg1361J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri K. Siva Ram Kumar, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/08/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 08/08/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri K. Siva Ram Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

invoked the provisions of section 144(1)(b) of the Act and proceeded to complete the assessment as best judgment assessment. During the assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO asked the assessee to produce the documentary evidence in respect of salary received during the year and also to furnish the details

Nirav Chandrakantbhai Bhalani, Bhavnagar vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1041/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 1041/Ahd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year :2016-17 Nirav Chandrakantbhai The Pr.Cit,Ahmedabad-1 Bhalani बनाम/ Ahmedabad-380 015 Plot No.9, Vibhapark Society V/S. Adhewada, Bhavnagar Bhavnagar – 364 002 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Bcipb 8197 E (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/08/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Dated 27/03/2024 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ahmedabad-1 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Pcit” In Short] In Exercise Of His Revisionary Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act” In Short) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. Nirav Chandrakantbhai Bhalani Vs. The Pcit Asst. Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

with section 144 r.w.s.144B of the Act. This section Nirav Chandrakantbhai Bhalani vs. The PCIT Asst. Year : 2016-17 8 pertains to the best judgment assessment, where the AO makes an assessment to the best of his judgment based on available information if the assessee fails to comply with

Late Smt. Mariam Bai (Through Legal Heir Shri Abdul Razak Chara), Indore (M.P.) vs. The Income-Tax Officer - 4(3), Indore, Indore (M.P.)

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 249/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Indore06 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Boradsmt. Mariam Bai (Through Income Tax Officer 4(3), Legal Heir Shri Abdul Razak Indore Chara), Vs. 12, Daulaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Advpc5505A Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 05.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2024 O R D E R

Section 147Section 148Section 69A

alleged cash deposit. However even after giving sufficient opportunity there was no compliance leaving no option with the Ld.A.O except to frame the best judgment assessment. He accordingly proceeded and made addition of Rs.14,90,000/- as unexplained income u/s 69A of the Act. The assessee challenged the impugned addition