← 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

Amrik Singh, Jhauni Purva, Hardoi vs. ITO-3(2), Hardoi, Income Tax Office Nagheta Road

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

ITA 329/LKW/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Amrik Singh, Vs. Ito-3(2), Jhauni Purva, Hardoi, Income Tax Office, Hardoi Nagheta Road, Pan: Darps 0109A Hardoi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sanjay Saxena, Ca Respondent By Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 27/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29/02/2024

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Accordingly, the Assessing Officer proceeded to invoke the provisions of Section 144 of the Act and completed the best judgment assessment by making an addition of Rs.11,87,660/-. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee approached the ld. First Appellate Authority challenging the addition. The assessee’s appeal

Anil Kumar Paik, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-8(1), Kol, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 492/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 492/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anil Kumar Paik Acit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates Vs 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor Suite No. 203 Off Hare Street Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aflpp6567R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/02/2024 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. 15/03/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Ld. Commissioner, Of Income Tax (Appeals)- N.F.A.C. Acted Unlawfully In Impliedly Sustaining; The Purported Addition Of Rs. 1,67.44,907/- Made The Ld. Assistant Commissioner, Of Income Tax, Circle 8(1) Kolkata By Invoking The Mischief U/S. 43Ca Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Without Satisfying The Parameters Thereof & The Adverse Conclusion Reached On That Behalf In Violation Of The Statutory Prescription Is Completely Unfounded, Unjustified & Untenable In Law. 2. For That The Specious Approach Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-N.F.A,C. Of Misreading Evidence, Considering Improper Facts

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 145Section 250Section 43C

real estate development. The flats sold by the Respondent- assessee are stock-in-trade. The CIT (A) by his order passed the best judgment assessment and noted that the sale consideration of twelve flats in the project has been suppressed. According to him, the market rate nearest to that date

Crystal City Mall Private Limited, Santacruz (West), Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 12 (1) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3867/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3867/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Crystal City Mall Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ National E-Assessment 2Nd Floor, Crystal Shopping Centre, Delhi Vs. Arcade, Opp. Indian Bank, Ito, Ward-12(1)(1) S. V. Road, Santacruz Aayakar Bavan, Mumbai- (West), Mumbai-400054. 400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcc4943J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rahul Hakani Revenue By: Shri H. M. Bhatt (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 27.09.2023 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Pointed Out That The Impugned Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is An Exparte Order; & He Also Pointed Out That The Ao Has Passed The Order U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) I.E. Best Judgment Assessment. According To The Ld. Ar, The Assessee Was Unable To Attend Before The Ao Inter-Alia On Account Of Covid-19 Pandemic & For The Following Reasons As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri H. M. Bhatt (Sr. DR)
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 68

also pointed out that the AO has passed the order u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) i.e. Best judgment assessment. According to the Ld. AR, the assessee was unable to attend before the AO inter-alia on account of Covid-19 Pandemic ... they were quarantined. Even though this fact was brought to the notice of the AO, still, the AO proceeded to pass the Best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the Act without hearing the assessee. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the assessee did not get proper opportunity before

Addl.CIT, Special Range-18, New Delhi vs. Jagananth Hemchand Jain, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7755/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 69C

DCIT, 258 ITR 188 (Delhi) to support the case of the Revenue that Section 145(2) duly empowers the Revenue to make a best judgment assessment when he has not satisfied about the correctness or completeness of the accounts of the assessee. It was submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi

Addl.CIT, Special Range-18, New Delhi vs. Jagananth Hemchand Jain, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7754/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 69C

DCIT, 258 ITR 188 (Delhi) to support the case of the Revenue that Section 145(2) duly empowers the Revenue to make a best judgment assessment when he has not satisfied about the correctness or completeness of the accounts of the assessee. It was submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi

The Konayapalem Pacs Ltd., Chandarlapadu Mandal vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 126/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.126/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) The Konayapalem Primary Vs. Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Cooperative Credit Ward-(3), Society Limited, Konayapalem Vijayawada. Village, Chandarlapadu Mandal, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh – 521182. Pan: Aacat 6987 G (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Asrss Siva Prasad, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri ASRSS Siva Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

well as the return of income filed by the assessee, the Ld. AO completed the assessment U/s. 144 of the Act as best judgment assessment based on the material available on record and as per the provisions of the Act. In the assessment order, the Ld. AO observed that since

Pravin Harjivandas Talati, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 42(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 3492/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Pravin Harjivandas Talati Ito-Ward 42(1)(4) C/O. Ca Himanshu Gandhi Chartered Mumbai Accountants, 16Th Floor, D Wing, Trade World Tower, Kamala Mills Vs. Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 68Section 69A

unexplained cash credit’ during demonetization period vide assessment order dated 13.12.2019 passed u/s. 144 of the Act being the best judgment assessment for the reason that the assessee has been non compliant throughout the assessment proceeding. 4. The assessee being aggrieved by the said order, was in appeal before

Ramasamy Kandasamy, Salem vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(6), Salem

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

ITA 1578/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1578/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ramasamy Kandasamy, The Income Tax Officer, Proprietor Traffic Fashions, V. Ward -1(6), 337, Ii Cross, Salem. Thirupathy Nagar, Alagapuram, Periyapudur, Tamil Nadu – 636 016. [Pan: Aoupk-1878-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. R. Srikrishna, Ca : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri. S. R. Srikrishna, CA
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 44ASection 69A

from the assessment order, where the Assessing Officer has issued various notices, but no response from the assessee. Therefore, the Assessing Officer passed best judgment assessment u/s. 144 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act and made additions of Rs. 6,34,737/- towards estimated profit @ 8% on sale turnover ... through orders of the authorities below. Admittedly, the assessee neither appeared before the Assessing Officer nor filed any details, which is evident from best judgment assessment passed by the Assessing Officer. :-4-: ITA. No: 1578/Chny/2023 Further, the assessee did not even appeared before the ld. CIT(A) and filed

Arumugam Hema, Puducherry vs. ITO Ward 1 Puducherry, Pondicherry

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

ITA 1597/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri. S. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, IRS, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 274Section 69A

appeal before the Tribunal. Now before me, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted 4. that the assessment was framed ex-parte and best judgment assessment u/s.144 of the Act for assessing the cash deposits made by assessee amounting to Rs. 20,95,450/- and underreported business income of Rs.8

Babu Velu, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corp. Cricle 9(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1583/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri. Anandd Babunath, C.AFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, IRS, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

Tribunal. :- 4 -: ITA No.1583 /Chny/2023 5. Now before me, the ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment was framed ex-parte and best judgment assessment u/s.144 of the Act assessing the cash deposits made by assessee amounting to Rs.11,26,000/- as unexplained money and hence he requested

Mr. Duraisamy Arun Prasath, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward 4(2), Coimbatore

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

ITA 1553/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1553/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Duraisamy Arun Prasath, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, C/O. M/S. S. Sathiyanarayanan, Non-Corp Ward 4(2), Advocates, Coimbatore. F1, Prp Block – Rose Park, No.10, Santhi Nagar, 1St Cross, Adambakkam, Chennai – 600 088. [Pan: Bdapa 6265R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sathyanarayanan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024 आदेश/ O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S. SathyanarayananFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 115BSection 144Section 69A

outset, the ld.counsel for the assessee stated that the order of CIT(A) is ex-parte and that of the AO is of best judgment assessment framed u/s.144 of the Act, due to non filing of evidence of agricultural income of earlier years. The ld.counsel stated that practically both

Lakshman Ram, Nagapattinam vs. ITO, Ward 2 Kumbakaonam, Kumbakonam

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

ITA 1521/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 144

vide order dated 27.12.2019. 2. At the outset, the ld.counsel for the assessee stated that the assessment framed by the AO is best judgment assessment passed u/s.144 of the Act, as the assessee could not represent before the AO and even the order of CIT(A) is ex-parte

Kumar Uma, Nagapattinam vs. ITO, Ward 2 Kumbakonam, Kumbakonam

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

ITA 1520/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144

reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 3. The ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment was framed ex-parte and best judgment assessment u/s.144 of the Act for assessing the cash deposits made by assessee during demonization period in demonetized currency amounting to Rs.17,28,500/-. Admittedly ... pointed out to the ld.counsel that the CIT(A) has fixed the appeal on various occasions and the order of AO also best judgment assessment u/s.144 of the Act because assessee has not responded neither filed return of income u/s.139(1) or 139(4) of the Act but filed belatedly

Shri. B.S.Ramachandra, Periyapatna vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1(1) & Tps, Mysore

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for

ITA 897/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaiana Bhatia, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian. S, Ld. JCIT
Section 115BSection 144Section 250Section 69A

Assessee was asked to show cause ‘as to why’ the assessment should not be completed ex- parte u/s.144 of the Act by making best judgment assessment and to furnish his reply by not later than 04.12.2019. The said notice also remain un-complied with. Therefore, the AO ultimately held

Sivalingam Natarajan, Ponamaravathi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, Puducherry

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1450/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, Addl CIT
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

where assessee has made deposit of cash including demonetized currency in specified bank notes aggregating to Rs.1,01,59,082/-, proceeded to frame best judgment assessment order u/s.144 of the Act. The ld. Assessing Officer made addition of cash deposit made during demonetization period in specified bank notes in demonetized ... Assessing Officer and dealt in the above ground). Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Assessing Officer during 6. the best judgment assessment noted that the total cash deposits made in the current account of SBI of assessee‘s proprietorship concern and treated the same as business receipts

M/S Blessing Agro Farm India Limited, Madurai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-1, Madurai

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

ITA 1504/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1504/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Blessing Agro Farm India The Income Tax Officer, Limited, V. Corporate Ward -1, 1E, 1K, Ss Colony, Madurai. Madurai, Tamil Nadu – 625 010. [Pan: Aadcb-6709-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri. P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

Officer. The case was posted once again on 10.03.2022, but the assessee neither appeared nor filed any details. Therefore, the Assessing Officer passed best judgment assessment u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 30.03.2022 and determined total income of Rs. 1,56,76,055/-, by making addition ... stages of proceedings, which is evident from the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, where the Assessing Officer has passed best judgment assessment, in absence of necessary details from the assessee. The assessee did not appear even before the ld. CIT(A), which is evident from the order passed

M/Shand Made Films, Chennai vs. ACIT, Non Corporate Circle-10(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2016-17 & 2017-18 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1502/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1501 & 1502/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Hand Made Films, The Assistant Commissioner Of S3, No. 27, V. Income Tax, 5 Twinkle Roof Apartments, Non Corporate Circle -10(1), State Bank Colony, Wanaparthy Block, No. 121, 2Nd Cross Street, M.G. Road, Nungambakkam, Virugambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 092. [Pan: Aagfh-6400-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.02.2024

For Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

selected for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee neither appeared nor filed any details. Therefore, the Assessing Officer passed best judgment assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act and made additions on the basis of estimated profit on gross receipts for both

M/S Hand Made Films, Chennai vs. ACIT, Non Corporate Circle-10(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2016-17 & 2017-18 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1501/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1501 & 1502/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Hand Made Films, The Assistant Commissioner Of S3, No. 27, V. Income Tax, 5 Twinkle Roof Apartments, Non Corporate Circle -10(1), State Bank Colony, Wanaparthy Block, No. 121, 2Nd Cross Street, M.G. Road, Nungambakkam, Virugambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 092. [Pan: Aagfh-6400-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.02.2024

For Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

selected for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee neither appeared nor filed any details. Therefore, the Assessing Officer passed best judgment assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act and made additions on the basis of estimated profit on gross receipts for both

Q-872 Thiruthangal Primary Agricultural Co- Operative Credit Society Limited, Virudhunagar vs. ITO, Ward 3, Virudhunagar

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

ITA 1433/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 1433/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 M/S. Q-872 Thiruthangal The Income Tax Officer, Primary Agricultural Co- Vs. Ward 3, Operative Credit Society Ltd., Virudhunagar. Thiruthangal, Virudhunagar – 626 130. Pan: Aaaaq 0201C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Girish Kumar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(1)(a)Section 144Section 250(6)Section 69ASection 69C

outset, the ld.counsel for the assessee stated that the CIT(A) passed ex-parte order and even the order of AO is best judgment assessment framed u/s.144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act and both the authorities below have passed order in gross violation of principles of natural justice. For this ... ld.counsel for the assessee first took us through the assessment order and stated that the assessment order is ex-parte and best judgment assessment u/s.144 of the Act dated 21.12.2022, thereby making various additions as under:- Sl.No. Description Amount (in INR) 1 Income as per Return of income filed

Bharat Bhushan Bansal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 43(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 7459/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.7459/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 56Section 68

accounts nor responded to any of the notices issued by the AO and, therefore, the AO rejected the books of accounts and made best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the Act estimating the gross profit at 12%. Considering the submissions made by the assessee the Ld. CIT(A) sustained