← 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

Shri Manish Agarwal, Chennai vs. The DCIT, Ncc-4(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1082/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1082 & 1083/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. Shri Manish Agarwal, The Dcit, Suit No.314, Ram Lakhan Chambers, Ncc-4(1), General Muthiah Mudaly Street, Chennai. Sowcarpet, Chennai-600 079. [Pan: Afkpm 9253 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M.KarunakaranFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 208Section 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 4Section 69A

order dated 22.09.2021 u/s.147/144 r.w.s.144B of the Act, which according to the Ld.AR was passed without hearing the assessee and it was a best judgment assessment. According to the assessee, the assessee didn’t receive any notice of hearing from the AO which led him passing the ex-parte/best ... sustainable in law. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and taking note that the AO has passed best judgment assessment without hearing the assessee and there are disputed question of facts involved in this case, we relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme

Jhunjhunbalaji Motors Pvt.Ltd., Jhunjhunu vs. ACIT Circle-Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu

ITA 344/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2024AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 151(2)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, 'A' JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Jhunjhunbalji Motors Pvt.Ltd., Jhunjhunu vs. ACIT, Circle-Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu

ITA 343/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2024AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 151(2)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, 'A' JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

J C Home Tex, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 7, Jaipur

ITA 292/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2024AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

customs records- Accounts reconciled later- Finding of fact- Income-tax Act, 1961. 396 ITR 580 –Principal CIT Vs. Marg Ltd. (Bom) [DOD: 20.07.2017]: Best judgment assessment Scope of section 144 Condition precedent Rejection of books of account by Assessing Officer – Nothing on record to show satisfaction of Assessing Officer that

Waheeduddin Khaja Moinuddin, Hyderabad vs. ITO (Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

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

ITA 458/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.458/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 ) Shri Waheeduddin Khaja Vs. Ito (International Moinuddin Taxation) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Dgopm7707P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Sashank Dundu, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt.Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 09/07/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.02.2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-10, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Did Not File His Return Of Income For The A.Y 2017-18 U/S 139(1) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. On The Basis Of Statement Of Financial Transaction Filed By The Banks In The Wake Of Demonetization, There Was Information Available With The Department That The Assessee Has Page 1 Of 4

For Appellant: Shri Sashank Dundu, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Smt.Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 156Section 69A

comply with the terms of a notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment under “best judgment assessment” and assessed the total income of the u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961 at Rs.10,80,000/-and made a demand of Rs.13

Satya Kumar Darbari, Lucknow vs. Dcitacit-4, Lucknow

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

ITA 41/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2017-18 Satya Kumar Darbari V. Dcit-4 381, Rajendra Nagar Lucknow Lucknow Pan:Agtpd4584H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Yogesh Mishra, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02 07 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05 07 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Mishra, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 272(1)(d)Section 274Section 68

treated this amount as unexplained cash deposit under section 68 of the Act and added to the income of the assessee by passing best judgment assessment order under section 144 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). He partly allowed the appeal

Deepak Khandelwal, Sehore vs. ITO, Sehore

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

ITA 120/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore05 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanideepak Khandelwal Ito J.P. Market, Narsullaganj Sehore Vs. Sehore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Agxpk7517R Assessee By Shri N.D. Patwa, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 05.07.2024

Section 139Section 144Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 294(4)(b)

response to notice u/s 148 the assessee did not file any return of income. The AO accordingly proceeded to frame the assessment as best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the Act. The AO has estimated the income of the assesse as under: “Under the facts and in circumstances ... 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

Sarveswaran Deepa, Tambaram vs. National Faceless Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 23/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.23/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 V. Sarveswaran Deepa, The Ito, No.18, Annanagar, Parvathy Nagar, Non-Corporate Ward-22(6), Alamelu Street, Old Perungalathur, Tambaram. Tambaram Taluk Kanchipuram District-600 063. [Pan: Axwpd 3112 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 144Section 24

therefore, he dismissed the appeal of the assessee. According to the Ld.AR, even the AO has passed an order u/s.144 of the Act (best judgment assessment) and since, the assessee didn’t get proper opportunity before the AO, he cited the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court ... opposed the plea of the assessee and submitted that the assessee didn’t cooperate before the AO and therefore, the AO passed the best judgment assessment and therefore, assessee shouldn’t be given another innings before the AO; and he supported the action of the Ld.CIT(A) and doesn

Raghav Sadanand Prabhu, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1806/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am Raghav Sadanand Prabhu Income Tax Ward 3(3)(1) Flat No. 2, Pawan Building, Air India Building, Room No. 1631, Vs. 16Th Floor, Nariman Point, Sitladevi Temple Road, Mahim, Mumbai-400 016 Mumbai-400 021 Pan/Gir No. Agvpp 7832 L (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya : Shri Anil Sant Respondent By Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 : 05.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya
Section 142(1)Section 144C(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69Section 69A

proceedings. The ld. A.O. then passed the final assessment order dated 05.03.2024 u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act on the best judgment assessment determining the total income at Rs.3,22,09,130/- by making the following additions: Sr. No. Particulars of income Amount (in Rs.) Add: Unexplained investment ... complied with the proceeding before the ld. A.O. and the Hon’ble DRP, the assessment was completed u/s. 144 of the Act on best judgment assessment, where the ld. A.O. made an addition of the impugned amount u/s. 69 of the Act and 69A of the Act. 5 Raghav Sadanand

Raees Qureshi, Ghonsala vs. CIT (A), Ujjain

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

ITA 60/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Raees Qureshi, Cit(A), Bus Stand Ghonsala, Ujjain Vs. Ghonsala, Madhya Pradesh (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaipq0025D Assessee By Shri Chirag Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 03.07.2024

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

sustained by the CIT(A) may be deleted. 5. On the other hand Ld. DR has submitted that the A.O has passed best judgment assessment when there was no response on behalf of the assessee to the notices u/s 148 as well as u/s 142(1) of the Act. Even ... when there was no response on behalf of the assessee to the notice issued by the A.O. Thus the A.O has framed the best judgment assessment and made the addition of the cash deposited in the bank account for want of supporting evidence and explanation of source

Marathi Narayana Sathisha, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(5), Bengaluru

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

ITA 709/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Marathi Narayana Sathisha, Vs. Ito, No.98, 1St Cross, Near White Park Ward – 3(3)(5), Apartments, Kudulu Village, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 068. Pan : Bjsps 3665 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Monish Sowkar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 21.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.06.2024 O R D E R Per Soundararajan K: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’) Dated 29.11.2023, In Respect Of Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Working As A Physical Instructor In The Cambridge Public School At Bangalore. During The Demonetization Period, The Ao Found That The Assessee Had Deposited Cash Into His Bank Accounts Amounting To Rs.22,53,400/- & Therefore Issued Notices Under Section 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act For Which The Assessee Had Failed To File Reply. Thereafter, A Show Cause Notice Was Also Issued To The Assessee For Which Also Assessee Page 2 Of 5

For Appellant: Shri. Monish Sowkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

lower authorities are sustainable or not. As seen from the Assessment Page 4 of 5 Order, it is an ex-parte best judgment assessment order u/s 144 of the Act and the order of the NFAC is also an ex-parte order and therefore there is no effective opportunity available

Late Krishnakumar Raghunath Koli, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1836/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: your honour for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the order passed under Section 250 of the Income tax Act by learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) for the aforesaid assessment year. It appears that the said order has been received by the appellant on 12 June 2023 i.e. the date of the order passed by the CIT(A).

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69C

scope of CASS by making the addition on other items of balance sheet and profit and loss account especially in the case of best judgment assessment. Nothing is on record that ld. AO sought permission to convert the case into full scrutiny from the higher authorities. CBDT Instruction No. F.No

Premila Mukeshbhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1049/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Dated 16Th October, 2023 Passed By 2

For Appellant: Shri Parin S. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr. D.R
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 68Section 69A

assessee failed to comply with the aforesaid show cause notice also. The Assessing Officer invoked provisions of Section 144(1)(b) and framed best judgment assessment by making an addition of Rs. 10,84,100/- being cash deposited during demonetization period as unexplained u/s. 69A of the Act r.w.s. 115BBE

Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(4), Hyderabad vs. Sunil Kumar Kumar, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 76/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad01 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.76/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Income Tax Officer Vs. Shri Sunil Kumar Kumar Ward 9(4) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aqppk9880P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Ch Rajeswara Reddy, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 01/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 01/07/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri CH Rajeswara Reddy, DR
Section 68

Rajeswara Reddy submitted that the assessee could not substantiate its claim with necessary evidences before the Assessing Officer which is evident from best judgment assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. The learned CIT (A) by admitting certain additional evidences deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer without allowing

Harsh Patel, Gram Padliya Tehsil Depalpurdi vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Indore

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

ITA 171/IND/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniharsh Patel Ito -1(1) Gram -Padliya Tehsil- Depalpur Indore Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bmfpp8078K Assessee By Shri Avinash Mandovara, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28 .06.2024

Section 144Section 147Section 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

Pradeep Plaha, Indore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Indore

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

ITA 170/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanipradeep Plaha Ito 1(1) Lg-39 Dawa Bazar, Rnt Marg Indore Dawa Bazar Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adepp2768F Assessee By Shri Arpit Gaur, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28.06.2024

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

issued another notice on 12.07.2019 but there was no compliance on behalf of the assesse. Accordingly the AO proposed to make best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the Act and ultimately assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.37,03,940/- by making an addition of Rs.32

Sameer Esmail Mohiyudin, Kurla (W), Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-35(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 53/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nagnath Pasale, D.R
Section 144Section 250

However, the Assessee failed to substantiate his claim and therefore the AO by using the provisions of section 144 of the Act passed best judgment assessment order and by holding “that no evidences towards cost of acquisition, improvement and expenditure in connection with transfer has been furnished

Anandi Arvind Balsekar, Mumbai vs. ITO, WD. 31(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 103/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhrianandi Arvind Belsekar Vs. Ito, Ward 31(1)(1), C-907, Omkar Alta Monte, R. No. 603, Kautilya Off W. Express Highway, Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, Malad East, G-Block, Bandra(E.), Mumbai-400097 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Ahipb0063D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S. G. GoyalFor Respondent: Shri Nagnath Pasale
Section 120Section 129Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 144Section 250Section 69A

response to a final show cause notice dated 06.11.2017 issued by the AO proposing to pass best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the Act, the assessee’s counsel furnished requisite details on 26.11.2019. It was submitted that the cash deposits were out of withdrawals made by the assessee

Avnish Kumar Suraj Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-36(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 1238/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Avnish Kumar Suraj Kumar Jain, Vs Ito, C-6/1., Rana Pratap Bagh, Ward-36(5), New Delhi-110007. New Delhi. Pan-Aekpj2063C Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28.06.2024

Section 144Section 148Section 44A

basis of material available on the record and also on the basis of my best judgment. "It is well-settled that in a best judgment assessment there is always a certain degree of guess work. No doubt the authorities concerned should try to make an honest and fair estimate ... income even in a best judgment assessment, and should not act totally arbitrarily, but there is necessarily some amount of guess work involved in a best judgment assessment, and it is the assessee himself who is to blame as he did not submit proper accounts." 3. Since there

Ramdas Yadav, Hoshangabad vs. ITO-2 Itarsi, Itarsi

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

ITA 163/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniramdas Yadav, Ito -2 267 Malakhedi

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 149(4)(b)Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

assesse even did not respond to the notice issued by the AO u/s 142(1) and consequently the assessment was framed as best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the Act whereby the AO has assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.49,00,000/-. The assessee challenged the action ... 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