← 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

Santosh Laujari Gupta, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer - 33(3)(3), Kautilya Bhavan

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

ITA 2971/MUM/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Santosh Laujari Gupta Ito, Ward-33(3)(3), Mumbai A-801, Raj Heights, M G Road, Near Vs Vora Colony, Kandivali West, Mumbai-400067. [Pan No. Adupg8487C] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 254(1)

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming rejection of books of accounts of the appellant and estimating rate of gross profit to 10% by the learned Assessing Officer and thereby confirming addition ... facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming rejection of books of accounts of the appellant by invoking provisions of section 145(3) of the Act by the learned Assessing Officer. 3. On the facts

Income Tax Officer, Silvassa vs. Ansuya Puspavijaysinh Parmar, Silvassa

In the result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue as well as all the three cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 771/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth Ita Nos. 769 To 771/Srt/2024 Assessment Year 2015-16 To 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Upadhyay, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. D.R
Section 251(1)Section 43BSection 46A

fact that the AO has given sufficient grounds te non-maintenance of stock details, discrepancy and non-payment of VAT, etc. for rejection of books of accounts and estimation of profit. 2.2 The ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee without considering the fact that ... fact that the AO has given sufficient grounds i.e. non-maintenance of stock details, discrepancy and non-payment of VAT, etc for rejection of books of accounts and estimation of profit. 2.2 The ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee without considering the fact that

Income Tax Officer, Silvassa vs. Ansuya Pushpvijaysinh Parmar, Silvassa

In the result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue as well as all the three cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 770/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth Ita Nos. 769 To 771/Srt/2024 Assessment Year 2015-16 To 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Upadhyay, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. D.R
Section 251(1)Section 43BSection 46A

fact that the AO has given sufficient grounds te non-maintenance of stock details, discrepancy and non-payment of VAT, etc. for rejection of books of accounts and estimation of profit. 2.2 The ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee without considering the fact that ... fact that the AO has given sufficient grounds i.e. non-maintenance of stock details, discrepancy and non-payment of VAT, etc for rejection of books of accounts and estimation of profit. 2.2 The ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee without considering the fact that

Income Tax Officer, Silvassa vs. Ansuya Pushpvijaysinh Parmar, Silvassa

In the result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue as well as all the three cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 769/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth Ita Nos. 769 To 771/Srt/2024 Assessment Year 2015-16 To 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Upadhyay, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. D.R
Section 251(1)Section 43BSection 46A

fact that the AO has given sufficient grounds te non-maintenance of stock details, discrepancy and non-payment of VAT, etc. for rejection of books of accounts and estimation of profit. 2.2 The ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee without considering the fact that ... fact that the AO has given sufficient grounds i.e. non-maintenance of stock details, discrepancy and non-payment of VAT, etc for rejection of books of accounts and estimation of profit. 2.2 The ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee without considering the fact that

Late Babulall Manmall Dugar Through His Legal Representative Amrav B. Dugar, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 381/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyallate Babulall Manmall Dugar Income Tax Officer, Vs. Through His Legal Representative Ward 1(2)(1), Amrav B. Dugar, Ahmedabad 1, Sanjay Society Part-Ii, Shahibaug Road, Ahmedabad-04 [Pan :Aeapd 5581 P] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Ms. Preyashi Tated, Ar Respondent By: Shri B.P. Makwana, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

For Appellant: Ms. Preyashi Tated, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Makwana, Sr DR
Section 143(1)Section 145(3)Section 148Section 250

Officer inspite of specific request made by appellant. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding rejections of books of accounts made by the Ld. A.O. without any defects.” 3. The assessee filed the original return of income electronically on 20.09.2021 declaring income ... opening were supplied and also an order rejecting the objection was passed. After considering submissions and examining records, the Assessing Officer rejected the books of accounts under Section 145(3) and estimated income @ 2% of the alleged bogus transactions totaling Rs. 2,06,68,791/-, being sales (Rs.1

Incometax Officer, Bhimavaram vs. Prasad Raju Penmatsa, Bhimavaram

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

ITA 33/VIZ/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.517/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2022-23) Vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward – 1 Penmatsa Prasad Raju D.No. 7-7-25/3 Income Tax Office Kodavalli Road, Fci Colony Aayakar Bhavan Bhimavaram – 534201 Jp Road, Sivaraopet Andhra Pradesh Bhimavaram – 534201 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aqcpp6707B] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.33/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2022-23) Vs. Penmatsa Prasad Raju Income Tax Officer D.No. 7-7-25/3 Income Tax Office Kodavalli Road, Fci Colony Aayakar Bhavan Bhimavaram – 534201 Opp. Ganesh Canteen Andhra Pradesh Jp Road, Sivaraopet Bhimavaram – 534202 [Pan:Aqcpp6707B] Andhra Pradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 144

profit of ratio of more than 25% and hence estimated the net profit @2% on the sales made by the assessee without rejecting the books of accounts. 4. On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us by raising following grounds ... case of PCIT v. Marg Ltd. [84 taxmann.com 52] the division bench of High court of Madras held that the rejection of books of accounts is sine qua non before the Assessing Officer to make his own assessment. Paragraph 4(c) of the said decision is reproduced as under

Penmatsa Prasad Raju, Bhimavaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bhimavaram

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

ITA 517/VIZ/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.517/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2022-23) Vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward – 1 Penmatsa Prasad Raju D.No. 7-7-25/3 Income Tax Office Kodavalli Road, Fci Colony Aayakar Bhavan Bhimavaram – 534201 Jp Road, Sivaraopet Andhra Pradesh Bhimavaram – 534201 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aqcpp6707B] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.33/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2022-23) Vs. Penmatsa Prasad Raju Income Tax Officer D.No. 7-7-25/3 Income Tax Office Kodavalli Road, Fci Colony Aayakar Bhavan Bhimavaram – 534201 Opp. Ganesh Canteen Andhra Pradesh Jp Road, Sivaraopet Bhimavaram – 534202 [Pan:Aqcpp6707B] Andhra Pradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 144

profit of ratio of more than 25% and hence estimated the net profit @2% on the sales made by the assessee without rejecting the books of accounts. 4. On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us by raising following grounds ... case of PCIT v. Marg Ltd. [84 taxmann.com 52] the division bench of High court of Madras held that the rejection of books of accounts is sine qua non before the Assessing Officer to make his own assessment. Paragraph 4(c) of the said decision is reproduced as under

S R Agro Tech, Behror vs. ITO, Ward, Behror

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1304/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234BSection 40Section 69A

Though the broad parameters have been laid down in the Section itself under which the provisions are required to be invoked for rejection of books of account in a particular case, vet, a definite ground work is sine-quanon on part of the Assessing Officer before resorting to the provisions ... bench of ITAT, third Member Bench in the matter of Raja & Co Vs Assessing officer ward Baramulla. The Honorable bench has held rejection of books of accounts not justified as the reasons recorded for rejection of such books of accounts are not meeting the criteria as laid down in section

DCIT, Circle-I, Ludhiana vs. Adinath Textiles Limited, Ludhiana

In the result both the appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross objection filed by the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 122/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

reliance is being placed on judgments of different courts, on the issue,no addition could be made without rejecting the books of accounts.” 19. As regards the addition of Rs. 6,03,827/- which have been deleted by the CIT(A), it was argued that this is consequent ... accounts of the assessee company are duly audited and such books of accounts have not been rejected u/s 145(3) and with rejection of books of accounts, no addition could be made as per settled law and, thus, the addition as made by the AO also stands deleted on this

Anita Devi, Rauniyar Pant Nagar vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Delhi

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

ITA 12/ALLD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaanita Devi V. Assessment Unit, Ward No.18, Sadar Income Tax Department Maharajganj, Uttar Pradesh- Delhi. 273303. Pan: Caspd7817G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms Vidisha Srivastava, Adv Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. Dr O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms Vidisha Srivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 144BSection 145(3)Section 147Section 250Section 44A

completed in accordance with the procedure laid down under u/s 144B. 5. Because the Ld. AO erred in fact and law to reject the books of accounts of the appellant without pointing out any discrepancy as referred in section 145(3) of the IT Act, hence, the rejection of books

Nazar Impex Private Limited, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1)(3), Surat (Current Jurisdiction), Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1212/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1212/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Nazar Impex Pvt.Ltd. Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 408, Saryu Diamond Complex, Ward-1(1)(3), Surat, Aaykar Vs. Jadda Khadi, Mahidharpura, Bhavan, Majura Gate, Opp. New Surat-395 003 Civil Hospital, Surat-395 001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccn3603R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (प्र"थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 04/06/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, ‘The Act’), Dated 26.09.2024 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi /Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), [In Short ‘Nfac/Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Which In Turn Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao’) U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 30.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee For The Appeals Are As Under: “1. Ground 6. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Rejection Of Books Of Account Under Section 145(3) Of Income Tax, Act 1961 Without Pointing Out Any Defect In Books Of Account & Even The Return Income On The Basis Of Books Of Account Were Also Not Disputed.

Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 145(3)Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 250

under: “1. Ground 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming rejection of books of account under section 145(3) of Income Tax, Act 1961 without pointing out any defect in books of account and even the return income ... assessee filed reply that his business is genuine but no supporting details were given to substantiate his claim. The AO thereafter rejected the books of account u/s 145(3) of the Act and estimated income at 0.2% on the import of Rs.1,31,96,98,887/-, 0.5% on bogus loan

Devika Buildestate Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 525/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

rightly deleted the addition which action is confirmed. And therefore Revenue appeal is dismissed. “ F. Disallowance of expenditure without rejection of Books of Account Without prejudice to the foregoing submissions, it is respectfully submitted that the Ld. AO, in his assessment order, has not invoked the provisions of section ... Chartered Accountant u/s 44AB of the Act. The books of accounts of assessee have not been rejected by the ld. AO. Without rejecting the books of accounts, the ld. AO cannot make any adhoc disallowance of any expenditure. 9.2 Further, Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case

DCIT, CC-3, Ludhiana, Kitchlu Nagar vs. Sh. Aman Batra, Civil Lines

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1041/CHANDI/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: or at the time of hearing of the appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Bhalla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 28Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

detailed reply of assessee with regard to change or modification of bills due to genuine and bonaifde reasons. 2.6 That the rejection of books of accounts u/s 145(3) is against the facts and circumstances of the case. That the rejection of books without pointing out any defects

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Ramesh Pannalal Ranawat, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the department and cross objection by the assessee are

ITA 5688/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am Dy. Cit-17(1) Late Ramesh Pannalal Ranawat Room No. 232, 2Nd Floor, Through Rahul Ramesh Ranawat G-Block, Kautilya Bhavan, (Legal Heir Of Late Ramesh Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Pannalal Ranawat) 1St Floor, Rangwala Building, Bandra, Mumbai-400 051 13/15, Dhanji Street, Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400 003 Pan/Gir No. Adtpr 8070 M (Revenue) : (Assessee) & Co No. 291/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5688/Mum/2024) (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Late Ramesh Pannalal Ranawat Dy. Cit-17(1) Room No. 232, 2Nd Floor, Through Rahul Ramesh Ranawat (Legal Heir Of Late Ramesh Pannalal G-Block, Kautilya Bhavan, Ranawat) Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, 1St Floor, Rangwala Building, Bandra, Mumbai-400 051 13/15, Dhanji Street, Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400 003 Pan/Gir No. Adtpr 8070 M (Assessee) : (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JainFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh
Section 133A

high and excessive, compared to the gross profit rate of 2.79% for the business as a whole. 10. Insofar as rejection of books of accounts maintained for Cuttack branch, learned First Appellate Authority observed that without pointing out any specific defects in the books of account, the A.O. could ... duly recorded in the books of account maintained both for Cuttack branch office and Mumbai HO. 19. Notably, though, the A.O. has rejected the books of account of Cuttack branch office, however, he accepted the books of account of Mumbai HO, which has duly recorded the receipt of 27233 grms

ITO-19(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Patdiam Jewels, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 1/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani, Ld. D.R
Section 10ASection 142(1)Section 250

Assessee and the specific fact that the stocks filed by the Assessee are found to be correct and being upheld, therefore the rejection of books of account is not appropriate. Moreover, the profit percentage offered by the Assessee is much higher than as against 2% estimated by the AO, therefore

Shri Karshni Alloys Private Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 23(3) Delhi, Delhi

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

ITA 3508/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Abhimanyu Jhamba, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 142Section 145(3)Section 69A

failed to appreciate that the Ld. Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as 2 'Ld. AO') has grossly erred in rejecting the Books of Accounts of the Appellant u/s 145(3) of the Act. 3 That on the facts and circumstances of the case ... Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition and on the aspect of rejection of books of account, he observed that non maintenance of the books of accounts is itself a defect as true and complete picture of business cannot

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. Jayaraj Jaison, Tirunelveli

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

ITA 2512/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:2512/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Assistant Commissioner Of Jayaraj Jaison, Income Tax, Vs. No.9/10, Prop: Jaison Bkery, Central Circle -2, Madurai. Kavalkinaru, Tirunelveli – 625 002. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) [Pan:Akgpj-2821-E] (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Venkata Raman,C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 30.07.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai (‘Ld.Cit(A)’ In Short), Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 30.09.2022 Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ In Short) By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Madurai (‘Ao’ In Short), For The Assessment Year (‘Ay’ In Short) 2020-21. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. R. Venkata Raman,C.A
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 68Section 69

treating the same as unexplained will never arise. Further, as evident is the assessment order, there exist no finding about the rejection of books of accounts u/s 145(3) of the Act and the AO admittedly has accepted the financials of the assessee for the AY 2020 21. In view

Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs. Akash Deep Sethi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and at the same time, the cross objections filed by the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 4973/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanincome Tax Officer, Vs. Akash Deep Sethi, Delhi. B-236, Derawal Nagar, Model Town, Delhi – 110 009. (Pan : Abyps8933P) Co No.26/Del/2025 (In Ita No.4973/Del/2024) (Assessment Year: 2021-22) Akash Deep Sethi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, B-236, Derawal Nagar, Delhi. Model Town, Delhi – 110 009. (Pan : Abyps8933P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate Shri Aman Garg, Ca Ms. Kirti, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.05.2025 Date Of Order : 16.07.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44A

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has ignored the fact that after rejection of books of accounts, there was no option but to estimate the profit of the business and accordingly, the profit of the business was estimated @ 25% of the total ... case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and law in upholding the action of the AO in rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee despite the fact that not a single error or mistake has been pointed out in the books of accounts of the assessee

DCIT Circle 1(1) & Tps, Thrissur vs. Konuparamban Ouseph Ittoop, Potta Chalakkudy

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 257/COCH/2025[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year:2013-14 Konuparamban Ouseph Ittoop .......... Appellant Potta, Thrissur – 680722. Pan: Aacpi9545G Vs. Dcit .......... Respondent Thrissur. Assessment Year:2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sathish John Kanichai, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 263

made on account of unexplained investment in construction of flat based on the DVO report. The AO without rejecting the books of accounts maintained by the appellant made addition of Rs. 20,77,866/- on account of unexplained investment in cost of the flat. The Hon'ble Supreme Court ... case of Sargam Cinema vs. CIT (2011) 241 CTR (SC) 179 had categorically held that without rejection of books of account, reference to DVO cannot be made for the purpose of estimating the cost of construction. Thus, the very reference made by the AO to DVO is illegal

Vinod Gupta, Jhunjhunu vs. Income Tax Officer, Jhunjhunu

Appeal is disposed of and the impugned addition is restricted to Rs

ITA 259/JPR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153(3)Section 2Section 250Section 251(1)

ACIT v. Chandra Surana [2022 (12) TMI 750] has held: As also observed from the assessment order that the AO had not rejected the books of account of the assessee as no contrary material was available with him to reject the books of account of the assessee. As regards ... Bench in Mahesh Kumar Gupta v. ACIT [2023 (3) TMI 1148] has held: Addition u/s 68 - cash deposits in bank account -non rejection of books of accounts HELD THAT: opinion of the assessing officer is required to be formed objectively with reference to the material available on record. Hence, application