← 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

Piyush Jain, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer-4(4), Indore, ITO

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

ITA 368/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Gagan Tiwari & Ms. Priyal Jain, ARsFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Porwal, Sr. D. R
Section 143(3)Section 199CSection 250Section 68

166/JP/2022 [CLC Page 94- 105] held that"... It is 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 the addition ... from the documentary evidences and also with the facts. It is 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

A.M. Suppliers (P) Ltd, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(1)(1), Surat

In the result, ground No. 1 of appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1114/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Physical Hearing) A.M. Suppliers (P) Ltd., I.T.O., Shop No. 1, Rajhans Building, Ward-1(1)(1), Vs. Ring Road, Surat-395002. Surat. Pan No. Aadca 3136 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 254(1)Section 68

addresses were furnished but no verification on such new address was carried out. The Assessing Officer issued show cause notice for rejection of books of account, still books of account was not rejected. Merely some of the parties has not responded, entire sales cannot be doubted. The turnover of assesse

Vivek Khabia, Surat vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, ground No. 3 is allowed and ground No

ITA 1072/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1072/Srt/2024 (Ay 2018-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Vivek Khabia Income Tax Officer, Ward- H.No.1187-90-91, 1089, Office 2(3)(4), Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, बनाम No.411, New Dtc Gheekanta Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 Vs Road, Nr. Bhavani Vad Temple, Haripura, Surat-395 003 [Pan : Avspk 5724 E] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 133(6)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 254(1)Section 28

brought any contrary material on record to disbelieve the bona fide transaction 7 Vivek Khabia of the assessee. The AO erred in rejecting the books of account under section 145(3) of the Act and in making estimation @10% profit as business income on purchase as well as sales turnover ... appeal, which we have already dismissed. Therefore, this ground of appeal is also dismissed. 13 Vivek Khabia 16. Ground No.3 relates to rejection of books of account, Ground No.4 and 5 relates to estimation of income @ 10% of entire purchases and sales. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala vs. Dsg Papers Pvt. Ltd., Patiala

In the result, respective appeals are disposed off in light of aforesaid direction

ITA 18/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

entire addition of under invoicing. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the books of accounts u/s 145(3) and, thereby, applying the gross profit rate of 24% on the sales declared by the assessee as per audited books ... that the books of accounts of the assessee duly maintained, audited and supported by complete purchase and sale vouchers and, thus, the rejection of books of accounts is against the facts and circumstances of the case. 4.a). That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the ground

Dsg Papers Pvt Ltd #6, Green View Colony, Patiala vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle Patiala, Patiala

In the result, respective appeals are disposed off in light of aforesaid

ITA 788/CHANDI/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2025AY 2020-2021

entire addition of under invoicing. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the books of accounts u/s 145(3) and, thereby, applying the gross profit rate of 24% on the sales declared by the assessee as per audited books ... that the books of accounts of the assessee duly maintained, audited and supported by complete purchase and sale vouchers and, thus, the rejection of books of accounts is against the facts and circumstances of the case. 4.a). That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the ground

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala vs. Dsg Papers Pvt. Ltd., Patiala

In the result, respective appeals are disposed off in light of aforesaid

ITA 768/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

entire addition of under invoicing. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the books of accounts u/s 145(3) and, thereby, applying the gross profit rate of 24% on the sales declared by the assessee as per audited books ... that the books of accounts of the assessee duly maintained, audited and supported by complete purchase and sale vouchers and, thus, the rejection of books of accounts is against the facts and circumstances of the case. 4.a). That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the ground

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala vs. Dsg Papers Pvt. Ltd., Patiala

In the result, respective appeals are disposed off in light of aforesaid

ITA 766/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

entire addition of under invoicing. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the books of accounts u/s 145(3) and, thereby, applying the gross profit rate of 24% on the sales declared by the assessee as per audited books ... that the books of accounts of the assessee duly maintained, audited and supported by complete purchase and sale vouchers and, thus, the rejection of books of accounts is against the facts and circumstances of the case. 4.a). That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the ground

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Patiala vs. Dsg Papers Pvt. Ltd., Patiala

In the result, respective appeals are disposed off in light of aforesaid

ITA 765/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

entire addition of under invoicing. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the books of accounts u/s 145(3) and, thereby, applying the gross profit rate of 24% on the sales declared by the assessee as per audited books ... that the books of accounts of the assessee duly maintained, audited and supported by complete purchase and sale vouchers and, thus, the rejection of books of accounts is against the facts and circumstances of the case. 4.a). That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the ground

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala vs. Dsg Papers Pvt. Ltd., Patiala

In the result, respective appeals are disposed off in light of aforesaid

ITA 764/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

entire addition of under invoicing. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the books of accounts u/s 145(3) and, thereby, applying the gross profit rate of 24% on the sales declared by the assessee as per audited books ... that the books of accounts of the assessee duly maintained, audited and supported by complete purchase and sale vouchers and, thus, the rejection of books of accounts is against the facts and circumstances of the case. 4.a). That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the ground

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala vs. Dsg Papers Pvt. Ltd., Patiala

In the result, respective appeals are disposed off in light of aforesaid

ITA 761/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

entire addition of under invoicing. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the books of accounts u/s 145(3) and, thereby, applying the gross profit rate of 24% on the sales declared by the assessee as per audited books ... that the books of accounts of the assessee duly maintained, audited and supported by complete purchase and sale vouchers and, thus, the rejection of books of accounts is against the facts and circumstances of the case. 4.a). That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the ground

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala vs. Dsg Papers Pvt. Ltd., Patiala

In the result, respective appeals are disposed off in light of aforesaid direction

ITA 760/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

entire addition of under invoicing. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the books of accounts u/s 145(3) and, thereby, applying the gross profit rate of 24% on the sales declared by the assessee as per audited books ... that the books of accounts of the assessee duly maintained, audited and supported by complete purchase and sale vouchers and, thus, the rejection of books of accounts is against the facts and circumstances of the case. 4.a). That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the ground

DCIT, Muzaffarnagar vs. Late Shri Haji Mohd. Dilshad Through L/H Shri Dilnawaz & Mrs. Mehrunissa, Muzaffarnagar

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA 3555/Del/2017 is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue in ITA 3754/Del/2017 is also partly allowed

ITA 3754/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14 Late Shri Haji Mohd. Dilshad, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Through Legal Heir Shri Dilnawaz Income Tax, Circle-1, (Son) & Mrs. Mehrunissa (Spouse) Muzaffarnagar. 800/1, Yogendrapuri, Muzaffarnagar Pan- Ahrpd 5860 D Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assistant Vs Late Shri Haji Mohd. Dilshad, Commissioner Of Through Legal Heir Shri Dilnawaz (Son) Income Tax, Circle-1 & Mrs. Mehrunissa (Spouse) Muzaffarnagar. 800/1, Yogendrapuri, Muzaffarnagar Pan- Ahrpd 5860 D Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145(3)

view of the facts and circumstances, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upheld the action of rejection of books of accounts U/s 145 of by the assessing officer without pointing out any single discrepancy in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee, which ... highly arbitrary, unjust and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. That, the Assessing officer/CIT(A) erred in rejecting the books of account U/s 145(3) without pointing out that how it is impossible to deduce the correct income from the books of account maintained by the assessee

Challenge Commodities Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Noida

In the result only ground pressed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2030/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 144Section 145(3)Section 68

aggrieved by the said order the assessee preferred appeal before the Learned First Appellate Authority. Appellant though raised ground in context of rejection of books of accounts u/s 145(3) of the Act in appeal memo, however, later on has not pressed the same. Thus, the rejection of books ... account of purchases made by assessee during the year under consideration and income from business has been computed at estimated basis after rejection of books of accounts, then separate addition on account of sundry creditors is rightly deleted by the Learned First Appellate Authority. In the result grounds raised

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Saurer Embroidery Systems India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 3508/DEL/2012[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (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

Kiran Fine Jewellers Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result ground no 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 648/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. P. P. Meena, CIT-Th. V.H
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68Section 69A

facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld CIT(A) is wrong, unjust and has erred in law in confirming rejection of book of account of the appellant company by the ld AO who invoked provisions of sec. 145(3) of the IT Act, 1961 by allegedly holding ... reducing it by alleged bogus sale) while accepting all component of Trading Account is thus contradictory and only on that basis rejection of books of accounts cannot be held valid in law. The appellant has countered the findings of Ld. A.O. that on examination of the sales bills

ITO., Ward -6(1), Hyderabad vs. Sidhi Jewellers, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 755/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.729 & 755/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sidhi Jewellers, Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad.. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.750 & 751/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) Sidhi Jewellers, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 148A

detailed explanation submitted by the appellant herein; 3) The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the books of account and in resorting the estimation of income; 4) The learned CIT (A) erred in estimating the net income at 6.31% of the turn ... submitted that the AO disbelieved the financials declared by the assessee on flimsy grounds, even though, there is no valid grounds for rejection of books of accounts. The LD.CIT(A) without appreciating the relevant facts, simply, upheld the reasons given by the AO and treated total credits appearing in bank

Sidhi Jewellers, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 751/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.729 & 755/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sidhi Jewellers, Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad.. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.750 & 751/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) Sidhi Jewellers, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 148A

detailed explanation submitted by the appellant herein; 3) The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the books of account and in resorting the estimation of income; 4) The learned CIT (A) erred in estimating the net income at 6.31% of the turn ... submitted that the AO disbelieved the financials declared by the assessee on flimsy grounds, even though, there is no valid grounds for rejection of books of accounts. The LD.CIT(A) without appreciating the relevant facts, simply, upheld the reasons given by the AO and treated total credits appearing in bank

Sidhi Jewellers, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 750/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.729 & 755/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sidhi Jewellers, Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad.. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.750 & 751/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) Sidhi Jewellers, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 148A

detailed explanation submitted by the appellant herein; 3) The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the books of account and in resorting the estimation of income; 4) The learned CIT (A) erred in estimating the net income at 6.31% of the turn ... submitted that the AO disbelieved the financials declared by the assessee on flimsy grounds, even though, there is no valid grounds for rejection of books of accounts. The LD.CIT(A) without appreciating the relevant facts, simply, upheld the reasons given by the AO and treated total credits appearing in bank

ITO., Ward -6(1), Hyderabad vs. Sidhi Jewellers, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 729/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.729 & 755/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sidhi Jewellers, Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad.. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.750 & 751/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) Sidhi Jewellers, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 148A

detailed explanation submitted by the appellant herein; 3) The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the books of account and in resorting the estimation of income; 4) The learned CIT (A) erred in estimating the net income at 6.31% of the turn ... submitted that the AO disbelieved the financials declared by the assessee on flimsy grounds, even though, there is no valid grounds for rejection of books of accounts. The LD.CIT(A) without appreciating the relevant facts, simply, upheld the reasons given by the AO and treated total credits appearing in bank

Hindvee Small Finance Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(3) Jammu, Jammu

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

ITA 215/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. K. L. Moolchandani, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69

regular books of accounts, cannot be doubted on mere presumption and assumption and branded as incorrect , because there is no case of rejection of books of accounts and the AO has rightly NOT rejected the books, and in absence of rejection of books the book results are to be accepted