← 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

Vimal Pukhraj Jain, Mumbai vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 1238/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Vimal Pukhraj Jain National E-Assessment Centre, 806, Dheeraj Enclave, New Delhi Vs. Opp. Bhor Industries, Borivali (E), Mumbai-400 066 Pan/Gir No. Aaipj 6511 H (Appellant) : (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Choughule
Section 131Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 68

assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Act and not u/s. 144 of the Act, i.e., the best judgment assessment. It is evident that the assessee has made some compliance before the A.O. and it is not a case of the complete non compliance

Giridhar Jadhao, Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 90/RPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.90/Rpr/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Giridhar Jadhao Vs Dy. Cit F-60, Shri Ram Vatika Circle 2(1), Raipur (C.G.) Near Ram Mandir, Teacher Colony, Kota Raipur-492 001 Pan No. :Acjpj 7367A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धारितीती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.B. Doshi, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/08/2023 घोषणाणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22 /08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 24.01.2023 For The Assessment Year 2013-14, Which Emerged Against The Order Of The Ld. Ao Vide Order U/S 144 Of The It Act Dated 28.03.2016. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. Ld. Cit (Appeals) Has Erred In Sustaining Addition Of Rs.21,41,188/- On Account Of Unexplained Investment U/S 69B Of The Act On Account Of Transaction In The Securities, On Reference Under Cib Transaction Under The Code 502 Of National & Multi Commodity Exchange Contract Of Rs.10 Lacs Or More Without Considering Our Submissions. 2. The Impugned Addition Made By The Ld. Ao Is Bad In Law, Illegal, Unjustified, Contrary To Facts & Law & Based Upon Recording Of Incorrect Facts & Finding, In Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice & The Same Should Have Been Quashed By The Ld. Cit (Appeals).

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 69B

above synopsis, the contention of the assessee submitted by the Ld. AR that the AO has made the assessment u/s 144 i.e. best judgment assessment and has added total volume of transactions in shares as 4 income of the assessee, which was not proper. If the transactions

Satya Pal Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-62(1), New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5212/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2023AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145(3)

could have ventured into estimation only after rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee u/s 145(3) and thereafter by best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the Act. Here in this case, the AO has not passed any order u/s 144 of the Act. The AO thus without rejecting

Satya Narain Parwal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 369/JPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 143Section 144Section 234ASection 271(1)

liable to be quashed. 1.1 That on the facts and in totality of the circumstances, the learned AO was not justified in making best judgment assessment as assessee has made his appearance, have always extended all the assistance and co-operation during the course of assessment proceeding. 1.2 That

ACIT, Circle-18(2), Noida vs. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd., Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4973/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

create any fictional receipt. It does not deem as receipt something which is not in fact received. It merely provides a statutory best judgment assessment of the consideration actually received by the assessee and brings to tax capital gains on the footing that the fair market value of the capital

ACIT, Circle-18(2), Noida vs. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd., Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4972/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

create any fictional receipt. It does not deem as receipt something which is not in fact received. It merely provides a statutory best judgment assessment of the consideration actually received by the assessee and brings to tax capital gains on the footing that the fair market value of the capital

ACIT, Circle-18(2), Noida vs. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd., Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4971/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

create any fictional receipt. It does not deem as receipt something which is not in fact received. It merely provides a statutory best judgment assessment of the consideration actually received by the assessee and brings to tax capital gains on the footing that the fair market value of the capital

ACIT, Circle-18(2), Noida vs. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd., Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4970/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

create any fictional receipt. It does not deem as receipt something which is not in fact received. It merely provides a statutory best judgment assessment of the consideration actually received by the assessee and brings to tax capital gains on the footing that the fair market value of the capital

ACIT, Circle-18(2), Noida vs. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd., Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4969/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

create any fictional receipt. It does not deem as receipt something which is not in fact received. It merely provides a statutory best judgment assessment of the consideration actually received by the assessee and brings to tax capital gains on the footing that the fair market value of the capital

ACIT, Circle-18(2), Noida vs. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd., Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4968/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

create any fictional receipt. It does not deem as receipt something which is not in fact received. It merely provides a statutory best judgment assessment of the consideration actually received by the assessee and brings to tax capital gains on the footing that the fair market value of the capital

Smt. Pritpal Kaur, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(3), Jalandhar

ITA 59/ASR/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Mohit Kumar Nigam, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 148Section 2Section 271F

investment of Rs.6,00,000. She could not receive the notice as she has left Jalandhar. The assessing officer has made the best judgment assessment u/s 144 of IT Act and has imposed penalty u/s 271F of IT Act amounting to Rs.5,000. The assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner

Ravi Mahexa, Daman and Diu vs. Income Tax Officer, Daman Ward, Daman

ITA 195/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 40ASection 68

made to the best judgment of an assessing officer, he substitutes the income that is to be computed under s. 29. Once best judgment assessment is made by fixing a rate of net profit, the assessee’s claim for deduction on account of expenses cannot be deemed to have been ... Assessing Officer could have ventured into estimation only after rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee u/s 145(3) and thereafter by best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the Act. Here in this case, the assessing officer has not passed any order u/s 144 of the Act. The Assessing

Ravi Mahexa, Daman and Diu vs. Income Tax Officer, Daman Ward, Daman

ITA 194/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 40ASection 68

made to the best judgment of an assessing officer, he substitutes the income that is to be computed under s. 29. Once best judgment assessment is made by fixing a rate of net profit, the assessee’s claim for deduction on account of expenses cannot be deemed to have been ... Assessing Officer could have ventured into estimation only after rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee u/s 145(3) and thereafter by best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the Act. Here in this case, the assessing officer has not passed any order u/s 144 of the Act. The Assessing

Ravi Mahexa, Daman and Diu vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, Vapi

ITA 193/SRT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 40ASection 68

made to the best judgment of an assessing officer, he substitutes the income that is to be computed under s. 29. Once best judgment assessment is made by fixing a rate of net profit, the assessee’s claim for deduction on account of expenses cannot be deemed to have been ... Assessing Officer could have ventured into estimation only after rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee u/s 145(3) and thereafter by best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the Act. Here in this case, the assessing officer has not passed any order u/s 144 of the Act. The Assessing

Shri Dhirubhai Gulabbhai Patel, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Navsari

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

ITA 217/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.217/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Hearing) Dhirubhai Gulabhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, H No. At & Po – Rankuva, Patel Navsari-396445 Faliya, Taluka – Chikhli, Dist. Navsari - 396560. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aezpp2183C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144

assessee has not filed any reply and documents before the Assessing Officer, therefore Assessing Officer passed order u/s 144 of the Act, best judgment assessment. On appeal by assessee, before ld CIT(A), we note that ld CIT(A) provided four opportunities of hearings, however, assessee never appeared before

Band Begam, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 247/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 234ASection 69A

erred in law and facts in not issuing proper and valid notices and also notices u/s 142(1) of the Act before making best judgment assessment order additions/disallowance. 6. Rs. 6,48,000/-: The ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case

Micro International, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-27, New Delhi

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

ITA 1825/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shuklaasstt. Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Maninder Kaur, Sr. Dr
Section 144Section 68

Despite several opportunities provided to the assessee, assessee has failed to comply with and accordingly Assessing Officer has no option but to pass best judgment assessment under section 144 after issuing final show cause notice. Finally he has made the addition after observing as under:- “9. In the cases where ... confirmed. 6. In so far as estimation of 15% of the revenue from operations, we find that the Assessing Officer even while making best judgment assessment has not been able to point out what has been the net profit shown by the assessee in the earlier years or subsequent years

Ronit Capital Management Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 4 (2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6679/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6679/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Ronit Capital बिधम/ Ito-4(2)(1) Management Ltd. 644, Aayakar Bhavan, M. Vs. 233, Shreeji Industrial K. Road, Mumbai- Estate, Subhash Road, 400020. Jogeshwari (E)-400060. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaach9239D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dharmesh Shah/Ms. Mitali Gopani Revenue By: Smt Riddhi Mishra (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/07/2023 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)-9, Mumbai Dated 23.08.2019 For Ay. 2012-13 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Addition To The Tune Of Rs.10,43,77,000/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 3. Brief Facts Are That The Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income On 30.09.2012 Declaring Total Income To The Tune Of Rs.70,768/-. Later, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny. The Ao Noted That The Assessee Had Only Partly Complied With The Notice Issued By Him On 30.01.2015 & Therefore In View Of The Non-Compliance, He Framed Best Judgment Assessment U/S 144 Of The Act, Making Several Additions Totalling Rs 68.83 Crores, Which Are As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah/Ms. MitaliFor Respondent: Smt Riddhi Mishra (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 68

assessee had only partly complied with the notice issued by him on 30.01.2015 and therefore in view of the non-compliance, he framed best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the Act, making several additions totalling Rs 68.83 crores, which are as under: - 2 A.Y. 2012-13 Ronit Capital Management

DCIT, C-7, Jaipur vs. Bharat Mohan Raturi, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and that of the C

ITA 413/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 The DCIT Circle-7 Jaipur cuke Vs. Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira Colony, Bani Park Jaipur 302 015 (Raj) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AANPR 7066G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 2/JP/2023 (Arising out of vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 ) fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira

For Appellant: Shri Anil Goya, CA &For Respondent: Mrs. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 148Section 54Section 54F

Income-tax Act, 1961 - Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)/Commissioner (Appeals) - Powers of - Assessment year 1982-83 - Whether, on facts stated under heading 'Best judgment assessment', Commissioner (Appeals) had power and jurisdiction for computing total income on basis of past records and audited profit and loss account, balance sheet and other relevant

Mr Jerry John Mendonca, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward-23(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1197/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mr. Jerry John Mendonca, Ito Ward-23(2)(1), Flat No. 102, Concrete Heritage, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi 1St Floor, Waroda Road, Bandra Vs. Karve Rd. New Marine Lines, (W), Mumbai-400050. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Armpm 1129 P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Kinjal BhutaFor Respondent: Ms. Indira Adakil, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

however, there was no response and therefore, the Assessing Officer was compelled to pass the assessment order u/s 144 of the Act i.e. best judgment assessment. 3.2 In view of the above facts, it is evident that the assessee is non-compliant of the Income-tax proceedings before