← 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

Harvinder Oberai, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 23(1) (5), Mumbai

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

ITA 1840/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhharvinder Oberai Vs. Ito-23(1)(5), 11, Tulsi Mahal, Room No. 114, Matru Opp Teresa School, Mandir, Tardeo , 26Th Road, Bandra, Mumbai -400007. Mumbai-400050 Pan/Gir No. Aasop2065R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Neelam C Jadav.Ar Respondent By : Mr.Tejinder Pal Singh.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S 144 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Ms.Neelam C Jadav.ARFor Respondent: Mr.Tejinder Pal Singh.DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

observed that the assessee is not interested in submitting the information and applied the provisions of Sec.144 of the Act and made Best judgment assessment and issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act on the Branch Manager, Bank of India, Mumbai, where the assessee is a proprietor

M/S. Shree Sant Gajanan Nagri Sahkari Patsahth, Thane vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Kalyan

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

ITA 1178/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S. Shree Sant Vs. Dcit-2, Gajanan Nagri Sahkari 2Nd Floor, Mohan Plaza, Patsahtha, Wayle Nagar, Shop No. 8/Plot No. Khadakpada, 48, Parshwnath Kalyan West – 421 301. Towers, Suryoday Chs Maharashtra. Ltd, Near Dns Bank, Ambernath, Thane -421501. Maharashtra. Pan/Gir No. Aafts9566E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Viraj Mehta.Ar Respondent By : Shri. Tejinder Pal Singh.Dr Date Of Hearing 05.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06.09.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S 144 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: M/S Shree Sant Gajanan Nagri Sahkari Patsahth, Mumbai. Legal:

For Appellant: Shri Viraj Mehta.ARFor Respondent: Shri. Tejinder Pal Singh.DR
Section 143Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 80P

were issued. Since there was no compliance M/s Shree Sant Gajanan Nagri Sahkari Patsahth, Mumbai. the AO has applied the best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the Act. The AO has considered the information on record and found that the assessee has not explained the cash deposits in the bank

Dy Cir 11 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Tirumal Trading & Investment Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 7647/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi &For Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

further, submitted that the assessment was framed on the Assessee was normal scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act and not best judgment assessment under Section 144 of the Act. The Assessing Officer had not called for share certificate or details of valuation as has been contended

Varsha Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 510/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.507 To 510/Bang/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

present case the issue is about applicability of 148 of the Act, non-furnishing of reasons and also a case of best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the Act, wherein the assessee was not given an opportunity as required under law. 5.7 The Calcutta High Court decision being ... which is not chargeable to income tax; b. where a return of income has been furnished by the assessee but no assessment (scrutiny/ best judgment assessment) has been made and it is noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee: i. has understated the income; or ii. has claimed excessive

Varsha Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 509/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.507 To 510/Bang/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

present case the issue is about applicability of 148 of the Act, non-furnishing of reasons and also a case of best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the Act, wherein the assessee was not given an opportunity as required under law. 5.7 The Calcutta High Court decision being ... which is not chargeable to income tax; b. where a return of income has been furnished by the assessee but no assessment (scrutiny/ best judgment assessment) has been made and it is noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee: i. has understated the income; or ii. has claimed excessive

Varsha Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 508/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.507 To 510/Bang/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

present case the issue is about applicability of 148 of the Act, non-furnishing of reasons and also a case of best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the Act, wherein the assessee was not given an opportunity as required under law. 5.7 The Calcutta High Court decision being ... which is not chargeable to income tax; b. where a return of income has been furnished by the assessee but no assessment (scrutiny/ best judgment assessment) has been made and it is noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee: i. has understated the income; or ii. has claimed excessive

Varsha Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 507/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.507 To 510/Bang/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

present case the issue is about applicability of 148 of the Act, non-furnishing of reasons and also a case of best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the Act, wherein the assessee was not given an opportunity as required under law. 5.7 The Calcutta High Court decision being ... which is not chargeable to income tax; b. where a return of income has been furnished by the assessee but no assessment (scrutiny/ best judgment assessment) has been made and it is noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee: i. has understated the income; or ii. has claimed excessive

ITO -Intl Tax Circle 3(3) (2), Mumbai vs. Rahul Rajnikant Parikh, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 426/MUM/2022[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2004-05
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 22Section 34Section 34(1)(a)

page 2077 that, if the notice under section 7(2) was a condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction to make the best judgment assessment, the doctrine of waiver could never confer jurisdiction so as to enable parties to avoid the effect of violating a mandatory provision on a jurisdictional

Rahul Rajnikant Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO Intl Tax Circle 3(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 425/MUM/2022[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2003-04
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 22Section 34Section 34(1)(a)

page 2077 that, if the notice under section 7(2) was a condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction to make the best judgment assessment, the doctrine of waiver could never confer jurisdiction so as to enable parties to avoid the effect of violating a mandatory provision on a jurisdictional

Kalpesh Ramniklal Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. ITO Intl Tax Cir 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 424/MUM/2022[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2004-05
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 22Section 34Section 34(1)(a)

page 2077 that, if the notice under section 7(2) was a condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction to make the best judgment assessment, the doctrine of waiver could never confer jurisdiction so as to enable parties to avoid the effect of violating a mandatory provision on a jurisdictional

Kalpesh Rashmikant Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. ITO It, Circle- 3(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 423/MUM/2022[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2003-04
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 22Section 34Section 34(1)(a)

page 2077 that, if the notice under section 7(2) was a condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction to make the best judgment assessment, the doctrine of waiver could never confer jurisdiction so as to enable parties to avoid the effect of violating a mandatory provision on a jurisdictional

Asha Krishnarao Bhoge, Aurangabad vs. ITO WD 1(1), Thane

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

ITA 1659/MUM/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleasha Krishnarao Bhoge Vs. Ito, Ward – 1(1) Plot No.-D7, Khivasara 6Th Floor, B Wing, Nilgiris, Khivsara Park, Ashar It Park, Wagle Ulkanagari, Industrial Estate, Aurangabad Road No. 16Z, Thane Maharashtra.-431009 Maharashtra-400604 Pan/Gir No. : Argpb3366F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi.Ar Respondent By : Shri R.P. Veena.Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S 144 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi.ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Veena.DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

there was no response from the assessee. The AO relied on the Asha Krishnarao Bhoge., Mumbai. information on record and applied the Best judgment Assesseement u/sec144 of the Act and made addition of Rs. 8,20,000/- and assessed the total income of Rs. 8,47,744/- and passed ... Ld.AR that what are the reasons for not appearing before the AO and the order passed by the AO is the best judgment assessment. The Ld. AR submitted that there was change of residential address and assessee has not received the notices and prayed for an opportunity to substantiate with

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle- 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Skm Fabrics ( Amana ) Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7027/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Accountant, Member & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopaldcit, Circle-4(3)(2), Room No. 649, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ...... Appellant Vs. M/S Skm Fabrics (Amana) Ltd. 99, Niranjan, Ground Floor, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400002 Pan: Aafcs2660E ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Hoshang B Irani (Dr) Respondent By : Sh. Yogesh Joijode Date Of Hearing : 24/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/08/2022 Order Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J.M:

For Appellant: Sh. Hoshang B Irani (DR)For Respondent: Sh. Yogesh Joijode
Section 144Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

Apex Court in State of Kerala Vs. C. Velukutty [60 ITR 239 (SC)] wherein it was held that even in the case of best judgment assessment, there should be reasonable nexus available to the material and circumstances of each case. Following the same, we hereby dismiss ground no.1 of appeal

Mahesh K. Faria, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) -II Cen RG 7, Mumbai

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

ITA 3806/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Ms. Hiral SejpalFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma (DR) & Ms
Section 124(3)Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144ASection 153A

assessee did not co- operate before the AO and therefore, the AO had no other alternative but to frame the best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the Act. Therefore, according to the Ld. CIT-DR, the legal issue does not survive and has to be dismissed ... same as non-est and therefore in the aforesaid facts and circumstances the AO had no other alternative but to pass the best judgment assessment under 144 of the Act and therefore, there was no necessity for issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. 6. In this context

Mehul Gems Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC-1(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the different assessees are allowed in terms as indicated above

ITA 384/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 384/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya &For Respondent: Shri Mahita Nair, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 251(2)

that there was no proper compliance or any detail which was submitted nor assessee responded to summon u/s 131, accordingly proceeded to make best judgment assessment and made estimation of gross profit in the following manner:- 13.3 As mentioned above, the assessee has shown a huge turnover

The ITO-3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. A B Color Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2928/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 3(1)(1) V. M/S. A.B. Color Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 666, 6Th Floor 901, Maker Chamber V Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Narimanpoint, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaaca3373K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Harsh KapadiaFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145

absence of any cogent reasons could not, by itself, have been a ground to reject the books of accounts in entirety and frame best judgment assessment on hypothetical basis by applying a particular gross profit ratio 3. CIT v. Smt. Poonam Rani

Mrs. Sheetal Gokul Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 30(2)(6), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

ITA 918/MUM/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Mrs. Sheetal Gokul Parikh, Income Tax Officer 33, Ghanshyam Dube Chawl No. 2, Ward 30(2)(6), Deep Narayan Dube Road, Vs. Earlier Ward 24(2)(2), Pragatinagar, Dahisar (E), Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Mumbai-400068. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aizpp 6142 M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Dipen Tanna, ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Smita Nair, DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

assessee and therefore, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment completed the assessment based on the material availa available on record as best judgment assessment as best judgment assessment, after making addition for 50% of the after making addition for 50% of the amount of the sundry creditors shown

Jay Nanda Mataji Co.Op. Credit Society Lte, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer WD 31(2) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

ITA 257/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jay Nanda Mataji Co-Operative Income Tax Officer Ward 31(2)(1), Credit Society Limited, R. No. 615, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Shop No. 153/5/6, General Vs. Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Arunkumar Vaidya Marg, Bandra Kurla Complex, Goregaon (East), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400065. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaaaj 5397 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. G.C. Lalka, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kiran P. Unavekar, DR
Section 69A

return of income was filed the Assessing Officer completed the return of income was filed the Assessing Officer completed the assessment as best judgment assessment assessment as best judgment assessment on 20.12.2019 on 20.12.2019 in terms of section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) section

Dy CIT. Circle-1, Thane vs. M/S Travecom Global P. Ltd., Bhayander

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 59/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Circle 1 V. M/S. Travecom Global Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 22, B-Wing B/607, Krishnakunj 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T. Park Salasar Brij Bhoomi Wagle Industrial Estate Bhayander (W)-401101 Thane (W)-400604 Pan: Aaect8729Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Aarti Vissanji Department By : Shri B.K. Bagchi

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

under DCF the above, no responses at all came from method as held by numerous Court assessee. The AO therefore proceeded on Rulings], best judgment assessment to determine FAIR MARKET VALUE relying on NAV Method. Procedural non-compliance and best Assessee has complied with each and judgement order

Ria Cetp Co-Operative Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 1, Panvel

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1909/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1909/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) Ria Cetp Co-Operative बिधम/ Ito, Ward-1 Society Ltd 3Rd Floor, Trifed Tower, Vs. Riacetp Co-Op. Ltd. Plot Opp. Khanda Colony, No.6, Bldg, Dhatav Midc New Panvel Roha C/O Adv. N. A. Kulkarni Wadal Building, 1St Floor, Near Dns Bank, Manpada Road, Dombivli (E)- 421201. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabar0138A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Ashish Deharia (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Society Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Nfac), Delhi Dated 23.09.2021 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Against Confirmation Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. None Appeared For The Assessee. We Note That The Despite Listing The Appeal Several Times & Even Though Notices Were Issued, None Appeared For The Assessee. The Impugned Penalty Of Rs.20,000/- Has Been Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A), Which Was Levied By The Ao For Failure Of Assessee To Comply/Respond To The Notices Issued By Him U/S 142(1) Of The Act. Even Though, Non-Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Deharia (Sr. AR)
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

Since the assessee did not respond to the statutory notices issued by him, AO had no other alternative but to frame the best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the Act by making an addition of Rs.36,58,456/- in place of the ‘Nil’ income returned by the assessee society. From