“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

The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cir.-1(1), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. M/S Backbone Projects Limited., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 404/RJT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

Backbone Projects Ltd. records before the Assessing Officer. However the Assessing Officer without taking note of this above reply passed a best judgment assessment order rejecting the books of accounts and estimating the turnover at 8% which was done in assessee’s own case for the earlier assessment year which

Norma Lydia Ayyash, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 24(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2758/MUM/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Norma Lydia Ayyash, Ito-24(3)(2), 15, Goundowli, Andheri East, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400069. Vs. Mumbai-400 005. Pan No. Akipa 4487 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Saurabh V. Bhatt : Revenue By Mr. Chetan M. Kacha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 26/12/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 29/12/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Saurabh V. Bhatt

Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271F

therefore, the Assessing Officer completed completed the assessment in terms of section the assessment in terms of section 144 of the Act i.e. best judgment assessment and made addition of of the Act i.e. best judgment assessment and made addition of of the Act i.e. best judgment assessment and made

Rekha Raghunath Erande, Mumbai vs. Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2593/MUM/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2593/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Rekha Raghunath Erande बिधम/ Ward-19(3)(1) 7, Room No-6, 2Nd Floor, 1St Floor, Matru Mandir, Vs. Khubchand Masion, Tardeo Road, Mumbai- Takwadi, Kalbadevi Road, 400007. Kalbadevi-400002. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpe4706E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Simoni Chauhan Revenue By: Shri Vaibhav Jain सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee An Individual Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac. Delhi Dated 05.08.2022 For Ay 2011-12. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac In Not Considering The Grounds Raised By The Assessee That She Did Not Get Proper Opportunity During The Assessment Proceedings I.E Before The Ao.

For Appellant: Ms. Simoni ChauhanFor Respondent: Shri Vaibhav Jain

Section 144

Raghunath Erande proceedings. Therefore, the AO has passed an exparte order u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) (i.e, best judgment assessment). And further it is noted that the Ld. CIT(A) has also passed an ex-parte order. Taking note of the submission made

Babita Devi Kanoria, Raniganj vs. I.T.O., Ward-3(1), Asansol

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 54/KOL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 54/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Babita Devi Kajoria,..............................Appellant W/O. Unesh Kr. Kajoria, Jagannath Garden, Nsb Road, P.O. Raniganj-713347, Burdwan, West Bengal [Pan: Anfpk0759G] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,..............................Respondent Ward-3(1), Asansol, Income Tax Department, Parmar Building, 54, G.T. Road, Upper Chelidanga, P.O. Asansol-713305, Paschim Burdwan (Wb) Appearances By: Shri Aayush Gupta, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 15, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 22, 2022 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz):- The Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Asansol Dated 18.11.2019 Passed For A.Y. 2010-11. 1 Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Babita Devi Kajoria, Raniganj 2. The Assessee Has Taken Three Grounds Of Appeal, But Her Grievances Revolve Around A Single Issue, Namely Ld. Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.3,09,766/-, Which Was Imposed By The Ld. Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C).

Section 133(6)Section 14Section 144Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

each other. There is no application of mind at the end of the ld. Assessing Officer. It is true that it is a best judgment assessment order but the ld. Assessing Officer is obliged to conduct a proper enquiry and ascertain the complete facts before reopening of assessment and passing

Shri. Jaywant Shyam Rathod, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi

ITA 2438/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Raman Shah, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, D.R

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69Section 69A

return of income but the assessee again failed to respond. Then the AO proceeded to frame the assessment on the basis of best judgment assessment after making analysis qua the cash deposit by the assessee in his bank account maintained with HDFC bank which the assessee has failed to explain

Norma Lydia Ayyash, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 24(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2760/MUM/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalenorma Lydia Ayyash Vs. Ito – 24(3)(2) 15, Goundowli, Andheri Aayakar Bhavan, East, Mumbai – 400069 Mumbai – 400005. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Akipa4487B Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Ms.Mansi Ayachit.Ar Revenue By : Ms.Richa Gulati.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2022 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms.Mansi Ayachit.ARFor Respondent: Ms.Richa Gulati.DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 195

referred to the notices issued to the assessee in the assessment order, since there was no compliance, the AO has applied the best judgment assessment and made additions as under: 1. TDS U/s 195 & 194A - 2,37,156/- 2. Premia CANARA HSBC Life - 3,00,000/- Insurance Norma Lydia Ayyash

Sanhita Ghosh, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-29(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 557/KOL/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Dec 2022AY 2016-2017

Section 115BSection 144Section 250Section 68

Rs.39,30,000/- in these bank accounts. The assessee could not appear before the ld.AO and 2. AY 2016-17 Sanhita Ghosh therefore, best judgment assessment framed u/s. 144 of the Act. Even before the ld. CIT(A) the assessee could not plead her case by appearing and filing necessary

M/S Cyber Infosystem and Technologies P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-5(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 921/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Cyber Infosystem Vs. Dcit, Cc-5(3) & Technologies Pvt R.No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Ltd,396, Kamath Air India Bldg, Industrial Estate, Veer Nariman Point, Savarkar Marg, Mumbai – 400021. Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400025. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc2176K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Priyavart Gupta.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Deepika Arora.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Cit(A))- 53, Mumbai Passed U/S 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: M/S Cyber Infosystem & Technologies P Ltd, Mumbai. 1) That, The Notice Issued Under Section 271(1)(C) Read With Section 274 Of The Act & The Order Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Are Illegal, Bad In Law & Without Jurisdiction.

For Appellant: Mr.Priyavart Gupta.ARFor Respondent: Ms.Deepika Arora.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

unclaimed as per the postal authorities. Hence the AO on perusal of the facts and the information available on record has applied the Best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the Act and observed that the assessee has obtained unsecured loans and the notice was issued to the directors and shareholders

Mr Salim Kunhi Bava, Mumbai vs. ACIT 21(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 903/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Mr. Salim Kunhi Bava Acit-21(3) 17/19, Khallick Villa, Ground Floor, Mumbai Vs. Balamiya Lane, Mahim, Mumbai-400 016 Pan/Gir No. Aacpb 5116 E (Appellant) : (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM Mr

Dnyanraj Yashvant Nikam, Mumbai vs. Pr, CIT -17, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1719/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1719/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dnyanraj Yashvant Nikam Pcit बिधम/ 110, 2Nd Floor, Mody Street, Room No. 120, 1St Floor, Vs. Jamathkhana Building Fort, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To Mumbai-400001. C-43 G-Block Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abmpn6980B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/12/2022 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. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-17, [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”], Mumbai Dated 09.03.2021 For Assessment Year 2010-11 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263

scrutiny and since there was no response to the notices issued u/s 142(1) & 143(2) of the Act, the AO passed the best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the Act and determined the income at Rs.64,69,400/- (i.e first round). On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed

Chevron Metal Products Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Assi.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1001/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 999, 1000 & 1001/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2013-14) M/S. Chevron Metal बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle 8(2) Products Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 22-A Panton Bunder Road, Mumbai-400050. Near, Britannia Darukhana, Raey Road, Mumbai- 400010. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc2190E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rajesh Shah Revenue By: Shri Hiren Bhatt (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-50 Mumbai Dated 21.03.2022 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Confirming Both The Quantum As Well As Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hiren Bhatt (Sr. AR)

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

framed the assessment order for AY. 2013-14 by order dated 11.03.2016 u/s 144 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act (best judgment assessment). According to the Ld. AR, the assessee had handed over the entire case file to Mr. T. J. Sodha, Chartered Accountant (CA) to represent on behalf ... assessee. However, the assessee came to know about the best judgment assessment order passed u/s 144 of the Act only on 11.03.2016, and A.Y. 2013-1 Chevron Metal Products Pvt. Ltd. when the assessee confronted the Ld. AR as to why he did not represent the case before

Chevron Metal Products Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1000/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hiren Bhatt (Sr. AR)

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

Kalimuthu Harichandran, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3498/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri I. Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 40A(3)

ought to have appreciated the fact that notice u/s.143(2) is a pre-requisite for framing a best judgment assessment as contemplated u/s.144 of the IT Act. The above grounds raised by assessee are purely legal and hence, admitted and being adjudicated. 3. At the outset

Kalimuthu Harichandran, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3497/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri I. Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 40A(3)

Sekar Devi, Madurai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward-2(1), Madurai

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

ITA 1592/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1591 & 1592/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 Smt. Sekar Devi, The Income Tax Officer, 16-C/2, Nadar Vidyasala Street, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 2(1), South Veli Street, Madurai. Madurai – 1. Pan: Aempd 9173M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P.M. Senthil Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16.11.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: These Appeals By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Different Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Madurai In Ita No.0104/2016-17 & 0076/2015-16 Both Dated 05.04.2019. The Assessments Were Framed By The Ito, Non-Corporate Ward 2(1), Madurai For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2009-10 U/S.144 R.W.S 147 & U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Orders Dated 13.06.2016 & 30.03.2015. 2. The Common Issue In Both The Appeals Of The Assessee Is That The Lower Authorities I.E., The Cit(A) As Well As The Ao Passed Order Without Assigning Any Proper Reasons & Justification & The Ao Framed Assessment Ex-Parte U/S.144 Of The Act In Assessment Year 2008-09 & The Cit(A) In Both The Years Has Dismissed The Appeals Of Assessee Without Deliberating On The Merits Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.M. Senthil Kumar, JCIT

Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

seems that ample opportunities were provided by the AO and despite that, in assessment year 2008-09, the order passed by AO is best judgment assessment u/s.144 of the Act because the assessee was not attending the matter. In regard to assessment year 2009-10, it is the allegation

Sekar Devi, Madurai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward-2(1), Madurai

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

ITA 1591/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.M. Senthil Kumar, JCIT

Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

Mr. Mangesh Tukaram Sawant, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 25(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 302/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.302/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Mr. Mangesh Acit- 25(2) Mumbai Kautilya Bhavan,Bkc, Tukaram Sawant Bandra(E),Mumbai A/004,Prathamesh बिधम/ Maharashtra, 400051 Horizon, New Mhb Vs. Colony, Linking Road, Borivali(W), Mumbai 400091 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aagps0518M (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri. Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Cit Dr. सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 18.10.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 31.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla:

For Appellant: Shri. Rajiv Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT DR

Section 144

loans and sundry creditors and also disallowed the entire financial expenses. Even if the assessment order has been passed u/s 144 by making best judgment assessment that does not been that the Assessing Officer should make such a high pitch assessment. Thus, under these circumstances that there was sufficient

Smt. Lizy George, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 398/BANG/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri V Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT (DR)

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 145(3)

present civil appeal has reiterated the argument that the Officer, having made the addition under Section 144 of the 1961 Act being "best judgment assessment", had invoked powers under sub-Section () of Section 145. For, assessment under Section 144 is done only if the books are rejected. In that case ... assessment was made under Section 144 as the same refers to Section 145(3). Under Section 144, the Officer has to make "best judgment assessment". The appellant/assessee urges that the purport of the stated provision is that the Officer re-assesses the entire accounts and makes the assessment of total

Mahendra Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)(3), Mumbai

ITA 1031/MUM/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Azhar Zain Vayal Parambath, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 145Section 147Section 148

were issued and assessee reported to have not appeared and the AO 5 Shri Mahendra Jain proceeded to pass the best judgment assessment order on the basis of material available on record. 8. At the same time, perusal of the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) also goes ... assessee- appellant had not responded to any of the notices during the reassessment proceedings which compelled the Ld. AO to pass, a best- judgment assessment, as has been reproduced above in this order. However, the record indicates that, neither the aforesaid submissions categorise these submissions as submissions for filing additional

Ambitious Plastomac Company Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT, Central Circle-39, Mumbai

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

ITA 1485/MUM/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ambitious Plastomac Company The Dcit, Cc-39, Ltd., Mumbai. 405, Royal Square, Nr. Jbk Arcade, Vs. Science City Road, Sola, Ahmedabad-380 060. Pan No. Aaaca 3237 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/09/2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, DR

Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

proposing addition, the Assessing Officer completed the , the Assessing Officer completed the assessment in terms of section 144 of the Act (i.e. the best judgment assessment in terms of section 144 of the Act (i.e. the best judgment assessment in terms of section 144 of the Act (i.e. the best