← 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

Omprakash Pandey, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 602/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2017-18 Shri. Omprakash Pandey, Vs. Ito, No.06, Sy. No.35, Basavanpura Main Ward – 4(2)(1), Road, Bhattarahalli, Bengaluru. Bengaluru–560 049. Pan : Azwpp 4082 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Siddesh S Gaddi, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 14.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Siddesh S Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 144

assessee’s assessment for Assessment Year 2017-18 was concluded under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) (best judgment assessment) by an order dated 16.09.2019. Against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). There was a delay

Sarita Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(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 382/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija
Section 10(38)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

Sarita Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 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 381/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija
Section 10(38)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

Sarita Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 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 380/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija
Section 10(38)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

Breach Candy Swimming Bath Trust, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee appeal

ITA 2469/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Breach Candy Vs. Dcit, Cc5(3) Swimming Bath Trust Room No. 1906, 19Th 66, Bhulabhai Desai Floor, Air India Bldg, Road, Breach Candy, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400026. Mumbai – 400021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatb0133F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Rajeev Waglay Adv. Ar Respondent By : Shri.Dilip Kumar Shah & Shri.Mahesh Akhade. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 53, Mumbai Passed U/Sec144 R.W.S147 & 250 Of The Act (A.Y.2014-15) & U/Sec 143(3)R.W.S147 & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (A.Y.2015-16). Since The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Identical & Inter Connected, Hence Are Clubbed, Heard & Consolidated Order Is Passed.

For Appellant: Shri.Rajeev Waglay Adv. ARFor Respondent: Shri.Dilip Kumar Shah &
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 2(15)

eligible for exemption u/s 11 of the Act. Hence the A,O, based on the information available on record has made Best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the Act and calculated the income assessable as per trial balance, tally back up data for the F.Y 2013-14 and allowed ... facts that there is dispute between committee members and ITA No. 2469/Mum/2021 & Breach Candy Swimming Bath Trust, Mumbai. the trustees and the best judgment assesseement order is passed under 144 r.w.s147 of the Act. At the time of assessment proceeding, there was no proper accounting principles were applied

DCIT 9(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S B. Chopda Construction P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is Partly Allowed

ITA 1513/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1513/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit-9(2)(1) बिधम/ M/S. B. Chopda Construction Room No.665A, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, A-208, Sagar Tech Plaza, Churchgate, Mumbai- Sakinaka Junction, Andheri, 400020. Mumbai-400072. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb4214G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohan Tandon Revenue By: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “11. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Restricting The Suppressed Profit To The Extent Of 12.50% Of Bogus Purchases, When The Assessee Could Not Produce Any Parties Or Evidence That The Said Goods Were Purchased A.Y.2012-13 & The Onus Of Proving Genuineness Of Purchases Was Not Discharged By The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Mohan TandonFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. AR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147

regard to the legitimate outgoings in the form of the entire purchases of gas cylinders ag not. The principle regarding making of a best judgment assessment has been well settled by the Apex Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. D. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 wherein

Om Prakash Jakhotia, Telangna vs. ACIT, CC-26, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 971/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 292C

provides a separate section 144, which mandates a best judgement assessment or Ex parte assessment. As per section 144 a best judgment assessment has to be made if no return of income has been filed under section 139(1), 139(4) and 139(5) or no return of income ... there was nothing to even remotely suggest that he had pressed into service the provisions of section 144 in order to make a best judgment assessment: i. Paras 1 and 1.2 at page nos. 1 and 2 of the assessment order capture the fact that no return of income

Om Prakash Jakhotia, Telangna vs. ACIT, CC-26, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 970/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 292C

provides a separate section 144, which mandates a best judgement assessment or Ex parte assessment. As per section 144 a best judgment assessment has to be made if no return of income has been filed under section 139(1), 139(4) and 139(5) or no return of income ... there was nothing to even remotely suggest that he had pressed into service the provisions of section 144 in order to make a best judgment assessment: i. Paras 1 and 1.2 at page nos. 1 and 2 of the assessment order capture the fact that no return of income

Om Prakash Jakhotia, Telangna vs. ACIT, CC-26, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 969/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 292C

provides a separate section 144, which mandates a best judgement assessment or Ex parte assessment. As per section 144 a best judgment assessment has to be made if no return of income has been filed under section 139(1), 139(4) and 139(5) or no return of income ... there was nothing to even remotely suggest that he had pressed into service the provisions of section 144 in order to make a best judgment assessment: i. Paras 1 and 1.2 at page nos. 1 and 2 of the assessment order capture the fact that no return of income

Om Prakash Jakhotia, Telangna vs. ACIT, CC-26, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 968/DEL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 292C

provides a separate section 144, which mandates a best judgement assessment or Ex parte assessment. As per section 144 a best judgment assessment has to be made if no return of income has been filed under section 139(1), 139(4) and 139(5) or no return of income ... there was nothing to even remotely suggest that he had pressed into service the provisions of section 144 in order to make a best judgment assessment: i. Paras 1 and 1.2 at page nos. 1 and 2 of the assessment order capture the fact that no return of income

Hitesh Mittal, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Karnal

ITA 4445/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, C. A.; &For Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra [CIT] – D.R
Section 139Section 144

Necessary directions should be issued for the same. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the best judgment assessment u/s 144 alleging non-cooperation of the assessee and non-furnishing: of the desired information; which is not correct as the assessee duly participated ... Necessary directions should be issued for the same. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the best judgment assessment u/s 144 alleging non-cooperation of the assessee and non-furnishing of the desired information; which is not correct as the assessee duly participated

Hitesh Mittal, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Karnal

ITA 4444/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, C. A.; &For Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra [CIT] – D.R
Section 139Section 144

Necessary directions should be issued for the same. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the best judgment assessment u/s 144 alleging non-cooperation of the assessee and non-furnishing: of the desired information; which is not correct as the assessee duly participated ... Necessary directions should be issued for the same. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the best judgment assessment u/s 144 alleging non-cooperation of the assessee and non-furnishing of the desired information; which is not correct as the assessee duly participated

Hitesh Mittal, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Karnal

ITA 4443/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, C. A.; &For Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra [CIT] – D.R
Section 139Section 144

Necessary directions should be issued for the same. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the best judgment assessment u/s 144 alleging non-cooperation of the assessee and non-furnishing: of the desired information; which is not correct as the assessee duly participated ... Necessary directions should be issued for the same. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the best judgment assessment u/s 144 alleging non-cooperation of the assessee and non-furnishing of the desired information; which is not correct as the assessee duly participated

Manmohan Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 45(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 8380/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 144Section 148Section 271Section 68

hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), was issued. Since there was no representation before the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer made best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the Act and added Rs. 15,67,190/-.Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals), who, after considering

Manmohan Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-45(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 8379/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 144Section 148Section 271Section 68

hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), was issued. Since there was no representation before the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer made best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the Act and added Rs. 15,67,190/-.Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals), who, after considering

Jagbir Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 42(1), New Delhi

The appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6389/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2010-11

Section 148Section 151

assessee was filed. Since this is a time barring case and the undersigned is left with no option but to pass the best judgment assessment order u/s 144 of the IT Act guided by judicial pronouncement in the case of CIT Vs. Yamu Industries

Ranbir Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 42(1), New Delhi

The appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6387/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2010-11

Section 148Section 151

assessee was filed. Since this is a time barring case and the undersigned is left with no option but to pass the best judgment assessment order u/s 144 of the IT Act guided by judicial pronouncement in the case of CIT Vs. Yamu Industries

Aggressive Digital Systems Private Limited, Haryana vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 874/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 874/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Aggressive Digital Systems Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, Plot No. 596-597, Sector-8, Imt Ward-1(1), Manesar, Gurgaon, Haryana-122050 Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aanca7751J Assessee By : Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Anand Kumar Kedia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.01.2022

For Appellant: Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anand Kumar Kedia, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

come before the Hon. Tribunal is in the nature of ex-parte of the order. Following judicial pronouncements forbid any change in best judgment assessment- (i) 24 ITR 95 (Del) - Singh Engg. Work - Best judgement Assessment cannot be interfered with by appellate authority or courts unless it is shown

DCIT, Circler-2, Noida vs. Kmb-Era Joint Ventrue, Noida

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2970/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Dcit Vs. Kmb-Era Joint Venture Circle – 2 C-56/41, Sector – 62, Noida Noida Pan : Aaaak 7362 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Sunita Singh, Cit-D.R. Revenue By Ms. Chinu Bhasin, C.A. Date Of Hearing: 12.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.11.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

Section 143(3)Section 144

appellant submitted that the due procedure prescribed in law to reject the books of accounts and to 3 take recourse to the best judgment assessment was not followed by the Ld. A.O. and the appellant was not given any opportunity to defend its position and without following the procedures prescribed ... considered to be so necessary, could have assumed jurisdiction u/s. 144 of I.T. Act, 1961 and proceeded to frame the best judgment assessment. However, it is seen that the Ld. A.O. did not choose to assume jurisdiction u/s. 144 of I.T. Act, 1961 and therefore, it cannot be held against

Anil Kumar Seth, Karnal vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Karnal

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

ITA 3787/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 271

assessee has raised following grounds in this appeal:- 1. “The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the best judgment assessment made u/s 144 of the Act alleging non-cooperation of ITA Nos.3786 & 3787/Del/2018 Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 the assessee and non-furnishing