← 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

Banvari Lal, Rajgarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Rajgarh

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

ITA 161/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanibanvari Lal Ito Rajgarh Rajgarh Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Agapl0102A Assessee By Shri N.D. Patwa, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27.06.2024 O R D E R

Section 144Section 147

made an addition of Rs.47,60,300/- on account of unexplained cash deposit in the bank account of the assesse while passing best judgment assessment u/s 144 r.w.section1 47 of the Act. The said order of the AO was challenged by the assessee before the CIT(A) however, the appeal

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Shakuntlam Colonizers Private Limited, Jaipur

ITA 697/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jun 2024AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik, CIT &
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 271(1)(c)

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

Meenakshi Dhananjai, Chennai vs. International Taxation Ward - 1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1484/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1484/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 V. Smt. Meenakshi Dhananjai, International Taxation, Plot No.23, Meenakshi Apartments, Ward-1(1), Sundaram Colony, Chennai. 1St Main Road, Selaiyur, Chennai-600 073. [Pan: Alfpd 7554 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana RaoFor Respondent: Shri Krishnan Ramaswamy
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

assessee also e-filed return of income on 15.10.2018 and thereafter, the assessment was completed by the AO u/s.144 of the Act (best judgment assessment) by determining tax liability of Rs.1,42,020/- and observed that “since, the assessee has deposited a sum of Rs.1

Shashidhara, Shivamogga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1& Tps, Shivamogga

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

ITA 959/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George Kr Assessment Year : 2015-16 Mr. Shashidhara, Vs. Ito, C/O Shadakshari Sri Banashakari Nilaya, Ward – 1 & Tps, Kuvempu Road, Besides Mant Kuvempu Road, Shivamogga. Shivamogga – 577 201. Pan : Czyps 1448 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Gowrish, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Gowrish, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 69C

view that assesee ought to be provided with one more opportunity to present his case. Since the Assessment Order is best judgment assessment, I deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the AO. The AO is directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee before

Income Tax Officer, Itarsi vs. Nadeem Khan, Pipariya

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

ITA 37/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniito, Shri Nadeem Khan

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 69ASection 69C

ITANo.37/Ind/2024 Nadeem Khan by the Assessing Officer. Ld. DR has further submitted that the Assessing Officer has finally completed the assessment on best judgment assessment basis u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act. Before the CIT(A) assessee has explained the reasons of non-appearance before the Assessing Officer ... Therefore, in those circumstances the Assessing Officer had left with no option but to frame the assessment as best judgment assessment. The Assessing Officer has assessed the total income of the assessee by making the addition of both of total deposits as well as total withdrawals without even considering

Pushpendra Singh Chouhan, Sehore vs. ITO-Sehore, Sehore

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

ITA 122/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Pushpendra Singh Ito Chouhan, Sehore C/O Adv.Hitesh Chimnani, Ug-37 Trade Centre, Vs. 18 South Tukoganj, Near Hotel Crown Palace, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Cggps1953Q Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Ms. Komal Wadhwani & Komal Kataria, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.06.2024 O R D E R

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

notice issued u/s 148 as well as notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act. Consequently the A.O framed assessment as best judgment assessment and assessed the total income of the assessee at Page 2 of 12 ITANo.122/Ind/2024 Pushpendra Singh Chouhan Rs.36,03,600/-. 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 Page 7 of 12 ITANo.122/Ind/2024 Pushpendra Singh Chouhan assessed total income of the assessee at Rs.36,03,600/-. The assessee

Bhalagam Naidu Raja, Vellore vs. Iti Ward 3, Vellore

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

ITA 872/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 872/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Bhalagam Naidu Raja, The Income Tax Officer, 2/26, Melachakattu, Vs. Ward 3, Kalampathu Latheri, Vellore. Katpadi, Vellore – 632 202. Pan: Anppr 0224B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1060261821 (1) Dated 30.01.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Vellore For The Assessment Year 2017-18 U/S.144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 14.11.2019. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noticed That The Assessee Has Raised The Ground That The Cit(A)-Nfac Has Violated The Principles Of Natural Justice In Not Allowing Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee & Passing Ex-Parte Order Without Going Into The Merits Of The Case. The Relevant Grounds Raised By The Assessee I.E., Ground Nos. 2 To 4 As Under:- “2. The Nfac Erred In Not Considering The Grounds Set Forth Before The Office Of Commissioner Of Income Tax & Passed An Order U/S.250 Which Violates The Principles Of Natural Justice.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 68

natural justice. 3. The NFAC failed to apply its mind while looking into the Assessment Order that is passed based on the Best Judgment Assessment. 4. The order passed u/s.250 is based on no logic and technicalities and is invalid in the eyes of the law.” 3. The brief facts

Vivek Ramsing Padvi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 29(3)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 357/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Shahank MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon
Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 69

details pertaining to the impugned addition before the ld. A.O. where the assessment was then passed u/s. 144 of the Act being the best judgment assessment. 8. The learned Authorised Representative ('ld. AR' for short) for the assessee during the appellate proceeding prayed that the assessee may be given

Vivek Ramsing Padvi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 29(3)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 356/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Shahank MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon
Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 69

details pertaining to the impugned addition before the ld. A.O. where the assessment was then passed u/s. 144 of the Act being the best judgment assessment. 8. The learned Authorised Representative ('ld. AR' for short) for the assessee during the appellate proceeding prayed that the assessee may be given

Bharatkumar Bhikhabhai Chavda, Hariyala Kheda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Nadiad

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

ITA 797/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad20 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad In Ita No. 797/Ahd/2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18 Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/ 2023-24/1059995984(1) Dated 22-01-2024 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals),National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi , Which Appeal In Turn Has Arisen From The Assessment Order Dated 07-11-2019 Passed By The 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M. Anand Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 253(3)Section 69A

bank supplied the requisite information to the AO. The Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 144 of the 1961 Act, and made best judgment assessment by 3 I.T.A No. 797/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No. Bharatkumar Bhikhabhai Chavda v. ITO making total addition

Kurla Moonrock Chs, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 4301/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailkurla Moonrock Chs Vs. Ito 14(2)(2) 823 New Hall Road Room No. 453 Kurla West, Aaykar Bhavan. Mumbai- 400070 M.K. Road Maharashtra – 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaeck2430P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Sameer G. Dalal Respondent By : P. D. Chougule Date Of Hearing 25.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2024

For Appellant: Sameer G. DalalFor Respondent: P. D. Chougule
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249Section 249(4)Section 50

Appellant by invoking the provisions of Section 147 read with section 148 of the Act. WITHOUT FURTHER PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE: 3. BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT U/S. 144 OF THE ACT: 3.1 The Id. A.O. erred in framing the best judgment assessment by invoking the provisions of section

Muvin Khan, Jhajhar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2) Bulandshahr, Bulandshahr

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1201/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year 2012-13

For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 69

such additions as unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee. Adverting further, the ld. Counsel submitted that the AO has resorted to best judgment assessment under Section 144 of the Act without giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee to counter the allegations made in the show cause notice dated

Nandi Polymers India Private Limited, Kurnool vs. ACIT., Circle-1, Kurnool

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

ITA 386/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR, Hon'ble (Judicial Member), SHRI MANJUNATHA G., Hon'ble (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR
Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

file necessary details to prove the source for cash deposits. The assessee neither appeared nor filed any details. Therefore, the AO passed best judgment assessment order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act and assessed total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,72,24,845/- by making additions towards ... assessee. We have heard the Ld.DR and have gone through the relevant assessment records and appellate order. Admittedly, the AO has passed best judgment assessment in terms of section 144 of the Act, because of non-appearance of the assessee during the assessment proceedings. The Ld.CIT(A) disposed

Rahul Ramesh Shelar, Thane vs. ACIT Circle-2, Kalyan

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

ITA 459/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Rahul Ramesh Shelar Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Pitru Chhaya Sadan, Income Tax, Circle 2 Near Railway Station, Ward No.6, 2Nd Floor, Mohan Plaza Vangani West, Thane, Wayle Nagar, Khadakpada Maharashtra – 421503 Kalyan (W), Mumbai - 421301 Pan : Asbps3128C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. Shah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 250Section 44A

initio wrong as the learned ACIT has not considered the assessee's previous years net profit as the base for the best judgment assessment. f) In view of above we hereby pray to set aside the order passed by the learned ACIT and consequential relied should be granted

Accurate Shoppers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 537/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 537/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Accurate Shoppers Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 4(3), 5/1, 4Th Floor Vs Kolkata Room No. 125, Clive Row Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaica9908Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 30/01/2024, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company. It Declared Loss Of Rs.65,724/- In The Return Filed On 26/03/2013 For Assessment Year 2012-13. Case Of The Assessee Selected For Scrutiny & After Making Addition Of Rs.8.67 Crores, Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act Completed On 23/03/2015. Thereafter Based On Information Received From Ito, Investigation, Unit-1, Kolkata, Re- Assessment Proceedings Were Carried Out Alleging That The Income Subject To Tax Has Escaped Assessment & Notice Was Issued On 2

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT D/R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

made to the notices issued u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act and accordingly, the ld. Assessing Officer passed the best judgment assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act making further addition of Rs.1.05 Crores for the unexplained money received from M/s. Dharmik Vintrade

Bezawada Narayanamurthy, Tirupathi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1), Tirupathi

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

ITA 358/HYD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.358/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Bezawada Vs. Income Tax Officer Narayanamurthy Ward 1(1) Tirupathi Tirupati Pan:Aespn6071N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 11/06/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)

record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. Admittedly, the assessee is a non-filer. The Assessing Officer has passed the best judgment assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act and made addition towards cash deposits. The assessee claimed before the first appellate authority that

Abbasbhai Sajaudinbhai Barad, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1012/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143Section 144ASection 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 69A

Page 3 of 7 225/363/2017)/05.03.2019, Ld. AO is required to seek directions of Range Head u/s 144A before framing the best judgment assessment. 7. Without prejudice the other grounds of appeal, Ld. CIT(A) erred in law by not appreciating the fact that Ld. PCIT-3, Ahmedabad

Mohamed Imran Mohamed Siddique Khan, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 26(2)(3), Mumbai

The appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 2900/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2024AY 2011-12
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 271F

initiated separately. Assessing Officer issued show cause notice u/s. 144 of the Act dated 26.11.2018 for computing the assessment on the principle of best judgment assessment. The cash deposit and cheque deposit amounts were treated as cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act and were added to the total income

Shri Alok Kumar Maiti, Haldia vs. ITO, Ward-27(2), Haldia

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

ITA 59/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Arup Chatterjee, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69Section 69ASection 80T

issued to furnish true and correct income. The assessee failed to do so. Accordingly, the ld. Assessing Officer proceeded to frame best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the Act, since the assessee failed to comply to the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. The assessee has been maintaining account ... 80TTA 3 I.T.A. No. 59/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Alok Kumar Maiti of the Act at Rs.10,000/-, framed the best judgment assessment assessing income at Rs.16,90,776/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) but on account of regular non-compliance

Venkata Narayana Gaddam, Nalgonda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nalgonda

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

ITA 478/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.478/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Venkata Narayana Vs. Income Tax Officer Gaddam, Nalgonda Ward-1 Pan:Afbpg8798K Nagonda (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 30/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/05/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

assessee has not filed his return of income for the A.Y 2017-18, the Assessing Officer decided to make ‘best judgment assessment’ u/s 144 of the I.T. Act, and made a demand of Rs.10,00,000/- as unexplained income u/s 69A of the I.T. Act. 3. In appeal, the learned