← All Phrases

“rejection of books of account”

ICDS & AccountingSection 145(3)Section 145(3)1,303 judgments

The decision most relied on for rejection of books of account is Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT (37 ITR 288), cited in 570 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on rejection of books of account

Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT
37 ITR 288 · 1959 · Supreme Court
570
citing judgments

Where an assessee maintains regular books of account, and these books are not rejected or found defective by the Assessing Officer, any cash deposits or available cash shown in the cash book, if sufficient to cover the transaction, cannot be treated as unexplained income or an addition under sections 68 or 69A.

CIT v. President Industries
258 ITR 654 · 2002 · High Court
471
citing judgments

When books of account are rejected and unaccounted sales or receipts are discovered, the income addition is restricted to the net profit element embedded in these undisclosed transactions, not the entire sale proceeds or receipts, especially if corresponding purchases are not proven to be outside the books.

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.

Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT
49 ITR 112 · 1963 · Supreme Court
281
citing judgments

An assessee must explain the source of entries in their account books and prove that the sums are not income; the department is not initially required to prove anything. However, the department cannot unreasonably reject a good explanation, thereby converting valid proof into no proof.

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.

N.K. Proteins Ltd. v. DCIT
84 Taxmann.com 195 · 2017 · Supreme Court
204
citing judgments

When purchases are found to be entirely bogus and based on fictitious invoices from non-existent or unconfirmed suppliers, the entire amount of such purchases is liable to be added back as unexplained expenditure, not merely a percentage thereof.

Indwell Constructions v. CIT
232 ITR 776 · 1998 · High Court
188
citing judgments

When an assessee's income is estimated after rejecting their books of account, further additions or disallowances for specific expenses are generally not permissible, as the estimation already accounts for these.

Sargam Cinema v. CIT
328 ITR 513 · 2010 · Supreme Court
172
citing judgments

For an Assessing Officer to make a valid reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer for the estimation of the cost of construction, the books of accounts must first be rejected under Section 145(3) of the Income-tax Act.

Judgments citing rejection of books of account

Akshar Jewellers, Junagadh vs. Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 535/RJT/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Dec 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234BSection 270A

535/RIT/2025 Akshar Jewellers 2.That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the rejection of books of account u/s 145(3) of the LT. Act, 1961. 3.That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed estimation of Gross Profit Rate @ 8% and wrongly made addition ... assessing officer. The Id.CIT(A) observed that non-furnishing the quantity details and value is not a minor error, therefore, the rejection of books of accounts and estimating the gross profit at 8% on the business turnover of Rs.143.98 Crores was correct. Therefore, learned CIT(A) did not interfere with

Rainbow Vanijya Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1891/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 44A

purchases/ sales are concerned, the Id. AR submitted that the same is not sustainable as the Id. AO has not rejected the books of accounts and without rejection how the books could be disbelieved which were audited under the Companies Act as well as under Section 44Ab ... income as assessed by the Id. Assessing Officer. We note that while making the assessment, the Id. AO has not rejected the books of account u/s 145(3) of the Act and therefore, the estimation of income at the rate of 1% of the total of purchases/ sales and loans

Vaibhav Dwarkanath Warekar, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 5432/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarvaibhav Dwarkanath Warekar 1 Midland Chs, Sector-9A Vashi, Navi Mumbai ............... Appellant Pan: Aalpw3682P

For Appellant: Shri Laxman SutarFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr.DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

view of the these facts and also relying on the decision of CIT(A)-33, Mumbai for AY 2008-09 the rejection of books of accounts by AO is upheld. In earlier years the disclosed profit is in the rage of 0.2% to 0.25% of the turnover. Accordingly

Hardayal Milk Products Private Limited, Shikohabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Firozabad

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is partly

ITA 342/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(2)Section 145(3)

assessee, Assessing Officer observed that he does not ignore any factual finding – whether favourable or otherwise to the assessee. Accordingly, he rejected the books of account maintained by the assessee after obtaining opinion from Addl. CIT, Range-2(2) that “it would be inappropriate to reach the conclusion that ... actual production on the face of it and the electricity consumption would corroborate the same, it would be appropriate that having rejected the books of accounts certain estimates of profits on account of 3 | P a g e unverifiable records be arrived at”. Based on the above directions, the Assessing

Ashoka Industrial Fastners, Ludhiana vs. DCIT Central Circle 3, Lduhiana

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1141/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT,DR
Section 132Section 145(3)Section 147

rate of 11.08% on the unrecorded sales on the basis of Whats App chat and this could not have been done without rejecting the books of accounts as it is a settled law that no addition could be made until or unless the books of accounts are rejected. 6. That ... judicial precedents cited by the assessee were  distinguishable as they did not involve seized digital evidence recovered during a search. The rejection of books of accounts under section 145(3) is not  a mandatory prerequisite for estimating income when the facts of the case justify such an estimation. 6. Feeling

Ashoka Industrial Fastners, Ludhiana vs. DCIT Central Circle-3, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1140/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Dec 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 145(3)Section 147

rate of 11.08% on the unrecorded sales on the basis of Whats App chat and this could not have been done without rejecting the books of accounts as it is a settled law that no addition could be made until or unless the books of accounts are rejected. 6. That ... judicial precedents cited by the assessee were distinguishable as they did not involve seized digital evidence recovered during a search. • The rejection of books of accounts under section 145(3) is not a mandatory prerequisite for estimating income when the facts of the case justify such an estimation. 6. Feeling

Ashoka Industrial Fastners, Ludhiana vs. DCIT Central Cirlce-3, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1139/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Dec 2025AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 145(3)Section 147

rate of 11.08% on the unrecorded sales on the basis of Whats App chat and this could not have been done without rejecting the books of accounts as it is a settled law that no addition could be made until or unless the books of accounts are rejected. 6. That ... judicial precedents cited by the assessee were distinguishable as they did not involve seized digital evidence recovered during a search. • The rejection of books of accounts under section 145(3) is not a mandatory prerequisite for estimating income when the facts of the case justify such an estimation. 6. Feeling

Penchalaiah Dasari, Nellore vs. ITO., Ward-1, Nellore

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

ITA 703/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri M V Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kritika Jaiswal, SR-AR
Section 142(1)Section 145Section 37

case of PCIT Vs. Marg Ltd. (2017) 84 taxmann.com 52 (Mad), held that profits of an assessee cannot be estimated without rejection of books of account. Since the A.O. has not rejected the books of account and estimated profit by considering the average net profit declared by the assessee ... assessee has also filed additional grounds before the Ld. CIT(A) and challenged that once the profit has been estimated after rejection of books of account then there is no scope of further disallowance of ITA No.703/Hyd/2025 6 expenditure. He further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) simply adjudicated additional

Commercial Transport Organisation, Mumbai vs. ACIT, 27(1), Mumbai, Vashi, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4965/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Commercial Transport Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Organisation Income Tax - 27(1), 1St Floor, B 112, Navi Mumbai Arjun Centre, Govandi East, Mumbai - 400088 (Pan: Aagfc6565J) Appellant Respondent Present For: Assessee By : Mr. Subodh Ratnaparkhi, Ca Revenue By : Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1077843575(1), Dated 26.06.2025 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Acit, 27(1), Mumbai U/S.143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 31.12.2016 For Ay 2014-15. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. The Hon Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.1,07,12,240/- Made By The Ld Ao, As Estimated Income, After Rejecting The Books Of Accounts U/S 145(3) Of The I.T Act 1961. The Addition Of Rs.1,07,12,240/- Being Not Warranted By Facts & In Law May Kindly Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Mr. Subodh Ratnaparkhi, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 40A(3)

erred in upholding the addition of Rs.1,07,12,240/- made by the ld AO, as estimated income, after rejecting the books of accounts u/s 145(3) of the I.T Act 1961. The addition of Rs.1,07,12,240/- being not warranted by facts and in law may kindly ... Transport Organisation Assessment Year 2014-15 2. The Hon CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.1,07,12,240/- by rejecting the books of accounts u/s 145(3) of the I.T Act 1961, not appreciating the explanation of the appellant with regards to the apparent defects as well

Shri Harsh Kumar Thapar, Meerut vs. ITO, Meerut

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

ITA 2751/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Harsh Kumar Thapar, Vs. Ito, A-92, Ganga Sagar Colony, Ward-1(3), Ganga Nagar, Meerut. Mawana Road, Meerut. Pan: Abmpt3630N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 6ASection 80C

made u/s 68 of the Act. 5.11 In any case without prejudice to above the telescoping of two additions on account of rejection of books of accounts and on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 needed by allowed in view of the following decisions: i. KSM Guruswami Nadar & Sons

K C Raju Multi Speciality Hospital, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1056/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 234B

missing in draft accounts. Such an approach, in our view, is not sustainable. 11.7 Importantly, the addition made is not based on rejection of books of accounts under section 145 of the Act, nor is there any estimation of income based on comparable cases or profit ratios. The books ... supported its explanation by books of account and other materials. 25.3 On facts, we note that the AO has not rejected the books of account of the assessee. The gross receipts disclosed in the income and expenditure account have been accepted. Once the books of account are accepted

K C Raju Multi Speciality Hospital, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1055/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 234B

missing in draft accounts. Such an approach, in our view, is not sustainable. 11.7 Importantly, the addition made is not based on rejection of books of accounts under section 145 of the Act, nor is there any estimation of income based on comparable cases or profit ratios. The books ... supported its explanation by books of account and other materials. 25.3 On facts, we note that the AO has not rejected the books of account of the assessee. The gross receipts disclosed in the income and expenditure account have been accepted. Once the books of account are accepted

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Jamshedpur vs. Kilburn Management Services Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 444/RAN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi18 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.444/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Jamshedpur…….... …………….…….…............................……….……Appellant Vs. Kilburn Management Services Pvt. Ltd..…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent 119, 4Th Floor, D Block, White House, Park Street, Kol-700016. [Pan: Aabck1160H] Appearances By: Shri Sumit Dasgupdta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Akshay Ringasia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 18, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 25.09.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld. Dr Submitted That Although The Tax Effect Involved In The Present Appeal Is Below The Monetary Limit Prescribed Under Cbdt Circular No. 9 Of 2024, The Case Falls Under The Exception Clause Provided In The Circular And, Therefore, The Appeal Of The Revenue Deserves To Be Adjudicated On Merits. 3. Per Contra, The Ld. Ar For The Assessee Strongly Objected To The Said Submission & Contended That Cbdt Circular No. 9 Of 2024 Prescribes The Monetary Limit Of ₹60,00,000 For Filing Appeals Before The Tribunal & In The Present Case, The Tax Effect Is Only ₹15,74,009/-, Which Is Far Below The Prescribed Limit. Even, The Case Of The Present Assessee Does Not Fall Under Any Of The Exceptions Clause Enumerated In The Said

Section 145Section 147Section 250

alleged escaped income of ₹49,94,000/- formed an integral part of the regular books of account maintained by the assessee. No rejection of books of account was made under section 145 of the Act the Act. Besides, that the Ld. CIT(A), while passing the order challenged before ... amount would clearly result in double taxation, which is impermissible in law. Further, while making the addition, the Assessing Officer did not reject the books of account under section 145 of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A), after examining the facts and evidences on record, found no infirmity

Jamaluddin S/O Shri Chunir Ahmed, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Ghaziabad

ITA 3551/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 2(22)(e)

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax [2003 SCC OnLine Cal 756] to contend that it is not necessary for the AO to reject the books of account in order to assess the income on the best judgment basis. He has also placed reliance on the decision of this Court ... concerned parties. He further submitted that in the absence of any discrepancy in the books of account and more importantly, without rejecting the books of account, such disallowance of the purchases by the AO is completely unjustified and contrary to the provisions of the Act. He, therefore, submitted that there

Jamaluddin, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward-1(3), Ghaziabad

ITA 3550/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 2(22)(e)

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax [2003 SCC OnLine Cal 756] to contend that it is not necessary for the AO to reject the books of account in order to assess the income on the best judgment basis. He has also placed reliance on the decision of this Court ... concerned parties. He further submitted that in the absence of any discrepancy in the books of account and more importantly, without rejecting the books of account, such disallowance of the purchases by the AO is completely unjustified and contrary to the provisions of the Act. He, therefore, submitted that there

Arbuda Textile Mill, Ahmedabad vs. NFAC, Delhi Present Juris. Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1906/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 145

absence of a proper stock register, the correctness and completeness of the books of accounts could not be verified. He therefore rejected the books of accounts under section 145 of the Act and proceeded to estimate the gross profit. By adopting a gross profit rate of 11% on the total ... preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The principal ground of appeal raised by the assessee was against the rejection of books of accounts and the consequential addition of ₹48,67,190/- on account of estimation of gross profit. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee contended that

Kasturi Medical Centre Private Limited, Joka, Thakurpukur vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax/Income-Tax Officer, Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 318/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manunatha G & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.318/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Kasturi Medical Centre Pvt. Ltd……………….................................……….…Appellant 5, Diamond Harbour Road, 3A Bus Stand, Joka, Thakurpukur, W.B – 700104. [Pan: Aacck1872F] Vs. Acit, Nfac, Delhi…….…………..…………….…..….......……..…...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Indernil Banerjee, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Soumitra Ghosh, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 12, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) Passed For The Assessment Year 2018–19, Whereby The Addition Of ₹85,40,911 Made By The Assessing Officer On Estimated Basis After Rejection Of Books Of Account Under Section 145(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Was Confirmed. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2018–19 Declaring Total Income Of ₹2,05,59,220. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Under The Scrutiny Assessment Scheme, 2019, Primarily On The Issue Of Large Refund Claimed Out Of Advance Tax. Accordingly, Notices Under Section 143(2) & Section 142(1) Of The Act Along With Questionnaires Were Duly Issued & Served.

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

assessment year 2018–19, whereby the addition of ₹85,40,911 made by the Assessing Officer on estimated basis after rejection of books of account under section 145(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was confirmed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return ... businessman and decide how business should be conducted. In view of the above facts and legal position, we hold that rejection of books of account under section 145(3) was unjustified, estimation of income at 17% was arbitrary, The addition of ₹85,40,911 is unsustainable. Accordingly, the addition

Mahanth Motors, Davangere vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1446/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 234

confirming the order of the learned assessing officer, as adhoc disallowances of expenditure and adhoc addition of income is not warranted without rejection of books of accounts, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The Appellant denies the liability to pay interest under section ... admit the additional ground. In the said additional ground, the assessee submitted that the adhoc disallowance made by the AO without rejecting the books of accounts is not correct. The Ld.AR also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court reported

Mahanth Motors, Davangere vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1445/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 234

confirming the order of the learned assessing officer, as adhoc disallowances of expenditure and adhoc addition of income is not warranted without rejection of books of accounts, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The Appellant denies the liability to pay interest under section ... admit the additional ground. In the said additional ground, the assessee submitted that the adhoc disallowance made by the AO without rejecting the books of accounts is not correct. The Ld.AR also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court reported

Bimal Kunjbihari Gorai, HUF, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 42/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 145(3)Section 68

NFAC”), Delhi vide order dated 30.10.2023 passed for A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. Rejection of books of accounts u/s.!45(31 of the Act: (i) The learned C1T(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming the rejection ... preceding year’s return after demonetization, which showed income under section 44AD of the Act. Considering the explanation unsatisfactory, the Assessing Officer rejected the books of account under section 145(3) and (i) made an addition of Rs. 59,90,000/- as unexplained cash credits under section