“best judgment assessment”

Ghanshyam Vashishta, Surat vs. ACIT CC-1(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am

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

Alibhai Safruddin Malik, Mumbai vs. ITO, WD 23(1)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalalibhai Safruddin Malik Vs. Ito – 23(1)(1) 22 Sea Pebbles, Near Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Joggers Park, Carter Nana Chowk, Mumbai – Road, Bandra, Mumbai 400007. – 400050. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Azmpm7354A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Shankar Balasubramaniam.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Kavita Kaushik.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 144 & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

Since there was no compliance to the notice and no explanations were filed. 3. The A.O. has applied the Best judgment assessment U/sec144 of the Act and made the addition of unexplained investments in time deposits in DCB bank

Mukesh S Jhangiani (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO WD-24(2) (4), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singh

PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE 2,1 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no best judgment assessment u/s. 144 was called for. WITHOUT FURTHER PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE 3.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action

Mukesh S. Jhangiani, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-24(2)(4), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singh

PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE 2,1 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no best judgment assessment u/s. 144 was called for. WITHOUT FURTHER PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE 3.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action

Mukesh S. Jhangliani (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-24(2)(4), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singh

PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE 2,1 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no best judgment assessment u/s. 144 was called for. WITHOUT FURTHER PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE 3.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action

Mukesh S. Jhangiani (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-24(2)(4), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singh

PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE 2,1 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no best judgment assessment u/s. 144 was called for. WITHOUT FURTHER PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE 3.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action

M/S. First Light Properties P. Ltd.(Earstwhile Known As M/S. Sumer Builders P. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. The DCIT, CC, 5(3), Mumbai

In the result ground of appeal raised by assessee is dismissed and stand of AO is confirmed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S First Light Properties Pvt. Ltd. (Erstwhile Known As M/S Sumer Builders Pvt. Ltd.) 205, Commerce House, 140, Nagindas Master Road, For, Mumbai-400023 Pan: Aaacs7947P ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Cc-5(3), Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Nishit Gandhi Respondent By : Sh. Sandip Raj, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/06/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

refuse to give an unqualified opinion in which case an assessee would be exposed to grave consequences of not only a best judgment assessment but also to penalty. We can appreciate this apprehension expressed on behalf of the assessee. However, in view of the clarification made by the Union Government ... sure that the concerned tax authorities will not approach the matter in a strictly technical manner so as to make a best judgment assessment and/or to levy penalty merely because there is a qualified report of an auditor. The authorities will adopt a judicial approach and consider all attendant circumstances

M/S. Multiventure Hotesl Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO-10(2) (4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Multiventure Vs. Ito – 10(2)(4) Hotels Pvt Ltd Room No. 213, 2Nd Shop No. 15, Anuradh Floor, Aayakar Society, Next To Fire Bhavan, Mk Road, Brigade, Sv Road, Irla Mumbai-400020 Bridge, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400058. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafcm4179E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Vishnu Agarwal.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Kavita Kaushik.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 17.06.2022 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 R.W.S.147 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: M/S Multiventure Hotels Pvt Ltd, Mumbai 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Reopening Of The Assessment U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Is Incorrect & Bad In Law.

compliance from the assessee. The A.O. considering the facts that the assessee is not coming for the record and applied the best judgment assessment on two disputed issues and assessed the total income of Rs.26,07,440/- and passed the order u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act dated

DCIT 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Late Shri Haresh A. Dhakan Through His Legal Heir Mr.Krunal H. Dhakan, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue is Allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyaldcit-1(3) (1), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400020. ..... Appellant Vs. Late Shri Haresh Dhakan Through His Legal Heir Mr. Krunal H. Dhakan, A-304, Classique Centre, Plot No. 26, Mahal Industrial Estate, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400093 Pan: Aadpd5584B ........Respondent Dcit-1(3)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400020. ..... Appellant Vs. M/S Sss Sai Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. A-304, Classique Centre, Plot No. 26, Mahal Industrial Estate, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400093 Pan: Aalcs4908D ........Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Anil S. Sant, Sr.Dr Respondent By : Sh. Vinod Bindal With Sh. Gaurav Bansal (Ay- 2007-08 & 2011-12) Date Of Hearing : 12/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08/06/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

assessment year 2007-08 was also worked out at Rs. 6,54,93,053/-. 7. We note that the AO has passed a best judgment assessment under section 144 of the Act because the assessee did not participate in the proceedings before the AO despite several notices. Therefore, though

Siraj Mansoorali Jamani, Mumbai vs. ITO-WD-25(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Siraj Mansoorali Jamani, Ito-Wd-25(1)(2), B/2802, Heaven Plaza, Near R.No. 403, 4Th Floor, C-10, Sammelan Hotel, S.V. Road, Vs. Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Dahisar East, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400063. Bandra (E) Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aftpj 0581 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. Kiran P. Unavekar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2022

reply was furnished and therefore, he assessed income for both the assessment years in terms of section 144 of the Act as best judgment assessment and made addition for unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of ₹3,00,696/- and ₹58,982/- against credit card payments for assessment year

Siraj Mansoorali Jamani, Mumbai vs. ITO-WD-25(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Siraj Mansoorali Jamani, Ito-Wd-25(1)(2), B/2802, Heaven Plaza, Near R.No. 403, 4Th Floor, C-10, Sammelan Hotel, S.V. Road, Vs. Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Dahisar East, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400063. Bandra (E) Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aftpj 0581 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. Kiran P. Unavekar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2022

reply was furnished and therefore, he assessed income for both the assessment years in terms of section 144 of the Act as best judgment assessment and made addition for unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of ₹3,00,696/- and ₹58,982/- against credit card payments for assessment year

Jazan Agro Tex Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 1(2)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Jazan Agro Tex Pvt. Income Tax Officer- Ltd., 1(2)(1), 701, Emerald Esley 2, Aayakar Bhavan, Royal Palm Arey Milk Vs. M.K. Road, Colony, New Marine Lines, Goregaon East, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 063 Pan: Aaccj1127G (Appellant) (Respondent)

assessment of the Appellant by invoking the provisions of Section 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act. WITHOUT FURTHER PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE: 3. BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT U/S. 144 OF THE ACT: 3.1 The NFAC erred in confirming the action of the A.O. in framing the best judgment assessment by invoking

DCIT Cent.Cir-8(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Farooq Ali Khan, Mumbai

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

evidence of nothing more than a mere suspicion to support fit in a particular year in itself cannot be a ground of best judgment assessment without support of the assessment. Low pro for invoking the powers any material on record. 8.13 Next, the statement of the Appellant recorded

Rekha Prakash Niichani, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) Mumbai, Mumbai

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

unlawful and hence, the same ought to have been quashed. 3 Without prejudice to above, the income assessed is higher and not a best judgment assessment. 5. The Learned CIT ought to have held that the Assessing Officer had erred in levying interest u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C

Royal Home Collections Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-4(2)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 910/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit-4(2)(1), Royal Home Collections R. No. 642, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, बिधम/ Plot No. 33, Abcd Govt. Mumbai-400 020 Industrial Estate, Charkop, Vs. Kandivali, Mumbai-400 067 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccm4922G (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant None : By प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent : Shri T. Shankar, Ld. Dr By सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 09.03.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 13.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-9, Mumbai Dated 30.01.2019 Pertains To Ay 2014-15. The Solitary Ground Of Appeal Is Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Upholding The Penalty Of Rs. 10,000/- Levied U/S 271(1)(B) Of The I.T. Act.

assessee company was assessed and the final assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) of the Act and not u/s 144 which is best judgment assessment. The Ld. AR further contended that the subsequent compliance by the assessee company in the assessment proceeding was considered as good compliance and that

M/S Poddar Finin Consultancy P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-7(3)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1860/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Poddar Finin Consultancy बिधम/ Ito Ward Pvt. Ltd. Maharashtra-410206. Vs. 4A/B, Ground Floor, Tk Industries Estate, Sitaram Palturam Murai Marg, Mumbai- 400015. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcp3938D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri R. A. Dhyani (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 06.08.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Thane [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1) The Assessment Order Passed By The Id. Assessing Officer (Ao) Is Invalid & Bad In Law. 2) (A) The Id. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Assessing Officer

quantum of assessment, and the question of jurisdiction of the ITO to make assessment could not be challenged in an appeal against the best judgment assessment under section 23(4) of the 1922 Act. The Tribunal further held that the ITO was justified in holding that the appellant was carrying ... provisions of the Act were not applicable to him, had little merit. The appeal which the assessee, therefore, had preferred against the best judgment assessment under section 23(4) of the 1922 Act would get necessarily confined to the two questions, namely, as regards the correctness or otherwise