“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

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

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

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

Radhey Shyam Yadav, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

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

ITA 814/JPR/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Feb 2024AY 2011-2012

For Appellant: Ms. Nargis Parveen, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 148Section 69

above, therefore , the AO has no other alternative except to finalize the case ex-parte u/s 144 of Income-tax Act, 1961 i.e. best judgment assessment on the basis of material available on record and merits of the case. In this case, the assessee had purchased Plot No.141, Situated

Subramanian Rathinakumar, Hosur vs. ACIT Circle-1, Hosur

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 966/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.966/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Subramanian Rathinakumar Acit बनाम 2/4, Nallampalli Circle-1 / Vs. Dharmapuri-636 701. Hosur. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Atjpr-1283-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri G.Baskar & Shri P.M.Kathir (Advocate)-Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)- Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 05-02-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05-02-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri G.Baskar & Shri P.M.KathirFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)- Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144

grievance of the assessee in captioned appeal is confirmation of addition of Rs.247.54 Lacs as made by Ld. Assessing Officer while framing a best judgment assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 on 06-12-2019. Though the assessee preferred further appeal, it failed to make any effective representation during appellate proceedings

Rasipuram Kumaarasamy Elango, Hosur vs. ITO, Ward-1 Hosur, Hosur

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1189/CHNY/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1189/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Rasipuram Kumarasamy Elango Ito बनाम 32, Mig Housing Board Colony, Mullai Ward-1 Nagar 12Th Cross, Rayakottai Main Road, Hosur. / Vs. Hosur-635 109. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aampe-1381-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri P. M. Kathir (Advocate)-Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar (Jcit)- Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 05-02-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05-02-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. M. Kathir (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT)- Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144

sole grievance of the assessee in captioned appeal is confirmation of addition of Rs.51.17 Lacs as made by Ld. Assessing Officer while framing best judgment assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 on 27-12-2018. Though the assessee preferred further appeal, it failed to make any representation during appellate proceedings. Accordingly

M/S Siddharth Diagold Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Circle 4(1), Chandigarh

In the result, we set aside the order of the Ld

ITA 171/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Jaspal Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 272A(1)(d)

even the subsequent compliance by the assessee company has not been found fully acceptable to the AO, leading him to passing of the best judgment assessment order in absence of requisite information/documentation submitted by the assessee company. 7. We have heard the rival contention and perused the material available

Heena Textile Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 4(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3326/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3326/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Heena Textile Ltd बिधम/ Ito-4(2)(3) Office No. 301, B-65, Aaykar Bhawan, Vs. Standford Plaza, New Link Mumbai-400020. Road, Opp Citi Mall, Nr. Morya House, Mumbai- 400053. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacch0454N (अपीलार्थी /Assessee) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri P. D. Chogule (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/01/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Company Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 27.07.2023 For The Ay. 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Challenged The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Sustaining The Disallowance Of Expense To The Tune Of Rs.12,30,870/- Which According To The Assessee Was Incurred During The Normal Course Of Business. The Assessee Is Also Aggrieved By The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao Making An Addition Of Rs.2,73,97,900/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chogule (DR)

Section 144Section 37Section 68Section 69

noted that the assessment order has been framed u/s 144 of the Act on 2 A.Y. 2012-13 Heena Textile Ltd. 25.03.2015 (i.e. Best judgment assessment), wherein the AO has made the following additions/disallowance (i) disallowance u/s 37 of the Act of Rs.12,30,870/-, (ii) unexplained investments

Venkata Ramireddy Kalluru, Kurnool vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kurnool

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

ITA 630/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Venkata Ramireddy Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Kalluru, Ward-2, Kurnool. 87/1281/12-F, Somisetty Nagar, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh – 518599. Pan : Dkwpk3931F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sashank Dundu. Revenue By: Shri Aravindakshan, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 30/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/01/2024

For Appellant: Shri Sashank DunduFor Respondent: Shri Aravindakshan, SR.AR

Section 115Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 294Section 69A

that limited information furnished by the Assessee should not be a reason for passing an order capriciously and vindictively since even in a best judgment assessment, the correct taxable income and the tax thereon has to be arrived at in accordance with law by following a judicious approach ... deposits in the bank account. As there was no response from the assessee, a final show cause notice dated 16.09.2019 was issued proposing best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the Act. 3.1 On verification of the bank accounts of the assessee Assessing Officer observed that assessee has not made

R Kamalakannan, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp. Ward 4(6), Chennai

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

ITA 1354/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1354/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. Shri R. Kamalakannan, The Income Tax Officer, No.85, Avvaiyar Cross Street, Non-Corporate Ward-4(6), Metha Nagar, Chennai. Madavaram Milk Colony, Chennai-600 051. [Pan: Afmpk 7211 A] (अपीलाथ$/Appellant) (%&थ$/Respondent) अपीलाथ$ की ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. S. Vidya, Ca %&थ$ की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Ar.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of : 29.01.2024 Pronouncement

For Appellant: Ms. S. Vidya, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT

Section 144Section 147Section 192ASection 234B

assessee neither appeared nor furnished any details, even though, the case was posted for hearing on many occasions. Therefore, the AO passed best judgment assessment u/s.144 r.w.s.147 of the Act, and determined total income of Rs.37,56,584/- by making additions towards variation in respect of income relatable

Chawala Enterpries, Meerut vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2)(4), Meerut

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 2610/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 69A

income on 31.03.2018 declaring loss of Rs. 12,56,530/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed under best judgment assessment at Rs. 65,63,000/-. Against this the assessee preferred appeal before learned CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal. Now the assessee is in appeal

DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. M/S Hill Max Export, Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 742/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 742/Chny/2023 & Co No.: 39/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Hill Max Export, Tax, V. No. 149/1, Central Circle 2(1), Pollachi Main Road, Room No. B3, Ground Floor, Kattampatti, Investigation Building, Jakkarpalayam-Vaipollachi, Chennai – 34. Coimbatore – 642 202. [Pan:Aahfh-2574-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. V. Nanda Kumar, Cit Respondent/Cross Objector By : Shri. M. V. Prasad, Fca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.12.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2024

For Appellant: Shri. V. Nanda Kumar, CIT

Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 69B

furnished any information in response to notices issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act. In our considered view, in a case of best judgment assessment u/s. 144 of the Act, the Assessing Officer is required to apply his mind to the material already available on record such as return

C Ramasamy Gounder HUF, Erode vs. ITO, Ward 1(5), Tirupur

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

ITA 1305/CHNY/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Mr.Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1305/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 C. Ramasamy Gounder Huf, Income Tax Officer 3/112, Puduvelliyampalayam, V. Ward 1(5), Nathakkadaiyur Kangayam, Tirupur. Erode – 638 701. [Pan: Aachc-1186-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. Arjunraj, Ca For अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Manjunatha. G:

For Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148

affixture on 08.11.2019. The assessee neither filed his return of income nor justified source for cash deposits. Therefore, the Assessing Officer passed best judgment assessment u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, on 16.12.2019 and made addition of Rs. 14,08,353/- towards cash deposits into bank account. 3. Aggrieved

Mohammed Masood, Chikmagalur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chikmagalur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1093/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144ASection 69A

issued show cause notice and intimated the assessee that if the assessee did not comply, assessment shall be completed as per best judgment assessment u/s. 144. Accordingly. The AO completed the assessment and applied 69A of the Act and made addition of entire cash deposit as income of assessee

Swapan Chandra Mandal, Purulia vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(3), Purulia

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 131/KOL/2023[2016-2017]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata11 Jan 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 131/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Swapan Chandra Mandal,.......................Appellant Village & P.O. Chelyama, District- Purulia-723145 [Pan: Akepm1916H] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,..............................Respondent Ward-3(3), Purulia, I.T. Office Building, South Lake Road, Purulia-723101 Appearances By: Shri P.J. Bhide, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Altaf Hossain, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 11, 2024 O R D E R

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

turnover shown by the assessee under section 44AD. This exercise has been made by the ld. Assessing Officer while passing a best judgment assessment order. We failed to appreciate under which law a debit balance from a Bank account could be added to the income of the assessee. The available

S. P. R. Drillers, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward 1, Tiruchengode

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

ITA 888/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Guduri, JCIT

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

time allowed by the Department. Hence, the AO proceeded to frame the assessment u/s.144 of the Act and finally assessment was framed as best judgment assessment u/s.144 of the Act, as the assessee neither filed any reply nor furnished any details. This fact is noted by the AO in paras

Goldstone Infra, Rajendranagara vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 8 (2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 570/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CA appeared for Sri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan

Section 115Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 69A

response to notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 12.03.2018, the Assessing Officer is proceeded with completion of best judgment assessment through E-Proceedings. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, notice u/s 142(1) of Act was issued and served upon the assessee from time to time through Registered

Balaji Jewellers, Jaipur vs. ACIT CC -4, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 433/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT

Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 68

hands of the assessee five years later. This fact itself indicates that the rejection of books of account and the consequential best judgment assessment made by the assessing officer in the present year is wholly excessive, arbitrary and unfounded. 11. In view of the above, we answer question no.1 ... JAIPUR The basis of the rejection appears to be best judgment of assessment done by him. The rejection of books should precede the best judgment assessment. On facts, the Revenue has not been able to show any defect in the Respondent's records which would warrant rejection of books

Talwar Medicos, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-50(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 3299/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Umesh Singh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr.DR

Section 144Section 250(6)

order under Section 144 of the Act whereby the total income of the assessee was determined at Rs.34,24,630/-. As against the best judgment assessment under Section 144 of the Act, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) I.T.A. No.3299/Del/2023 2 declined to grant

Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1)(3), Surat

ITA 250/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 To 191/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12 To 2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 148

enhanced. It is high. In any case, it cannot be said that there has been perversity of approach.” Even in case of best judgment assessment, a honest and fair estimate of income should be made e) Kachwala Gems vs. JCIT 288 ITR 10(SC) “It is well settled that ... best judgment assessment there is always a certain degree of guesswork. No doubt the authorities concerned should try to make an honest and fair estimate of the income even in a best judgment assessment, and should not act totally arbitrarily.” In absence of contrary evidences, disallowance of purchase cannot

Shrifal Impex Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1)(3), Surat

ITA 191/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 148

Shrifal Impex Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1)(3), Surat

ITA 190/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 148

Pravin Shrawanlal Sahu, Nagpur vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 200/NAG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.199 & 200/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Pravin Shrawanlal Sahu, The Assessing Officer- Plot No.517, Sahu Bhawan, V Nfac. Chandabai Layout, Chandan S Nagar, Medical Square, Nagpur – 440009. Pan: Bbmps2413P Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kapil Hirani – Ca Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 29/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27/12/2023

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

merits of the case, the income is assessed at Rs.1,48,57,766/- u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the I.T. Act under best judgment assessment as no return has been filed by the assessee. The assessee has concealed particulars of his income. Therefore, show cause notice for initiation of penalty