← 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

Gurdas Mal Arora, Kanpur vs. The A O Circle-1(2)(1), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for statistical purposes

ITA 412/LKW/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshragurdas Mal Arora V. The Assessing Officer, 21/L/4, Daboli, Circle-1(2)(1) Kanpur. 16/69, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Kanpur- 208001. Pan:Afepm4342J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit-Dr O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68Section 69A

books of accounts have already been rejected u/s 145(3) of the IT Act, 1961. 2. That the Id.AO has erred in rejecting the books of account without issuance of show-cause notice to the appellant before rejection of books of account u/s 145(3) of the Income ... books to which the appellant has offered the profit to tax and the Id.AO has accepted the same and has made partial rejection of books of account to the extent cash deposited. Such addition made would lead to double taxation as the sale has been offered to tax and accepted

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala vs. Arun Bhandari, Patiala

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee and Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 931/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Krinwant Sahay, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.931/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Arun Bhandari Patiala बनाम/ Vs. Tax, Patiala 10, Dhillon Marg, Model Town, Patiala, Punjab-147001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Akupb-0470-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.832/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Arun Bhandari Patiala Acit, Dcit Central Circle बनाम/ Vs. 10, Dhillon Marg, Model Town, Patiala Patiala, Punjab-147001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Akupb-0470-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Rakesh Cajla (Advocate) ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 07 -01-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Krinwant Sahay () The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue & Cross Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-5

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Cajla (Advocate)For Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) Sr. DR
Section 127Section 129Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69C

telescoping against the income has been allowed. 4. That Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-5), Ludhiana is erred in upholding the rejection of books of accounts. 5. That Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-5), Ludhiana is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 34535/- under the head ... telescoping and calculate the addition made u/s 69C of the Act. 14. The appeal on ground No. 4 is against the rejection of books of account. On this account, the Ld. CIT(A) has given a very detailed and speaking order in the appellate order: 6.5.3 I have considered

Arun Bhandari, Patiala vs. ACIT DCIT Central Circle Patiala, Patiala

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee and Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 832/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Krinwant Sahay, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.931/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Arun Bhandari Patiala बनाम/ Vs. Tax, Patiala 10, Dhillon Marg, Model Town, Patiala, Punjab-147001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Akupb-0470-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.832/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Arun Bhandari Patiala Acit, Dcit Central Circle बनाम/ Vs. 10, Dhillon Marg, Model Town, Patiala Patiala, Punjab-147001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Akupb-0470-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Rakesh Cajla (Advocate) ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 07 -01-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Krinwant Sahay () The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue & Cross Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-5

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Cajla (Advocate)For Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) Sr. DR
Section 127Section 129Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69C

telescoping against the income has been allowed. 4. That Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-5), Ludhiana is erred in upholding the rejection of books of accounts. 5. That Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-5), Ludhiana is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 34535/- under the head ... telescoping and calculate the addition made u/s 69C of the Act. 14. The appeal on ground No. 4 is against the rejection of books of account. On this account, the Ld. CIT(A) has given a very detailed and speaking order in the appellate order: 6.5.3 I have considered

Sanghi Textiles Private Limited, Hyderbad vs. ITO., Ward-3(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1311/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Us:

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 145Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 250Section 37(1)

which is mandatory for initiating scrutiny proceedings. 4. The LD. CIT(A) ought to have considered that the Ld. AO erred in rejecting the books of accounts of the appellant under section 145 of the Act, and thereafter making separate additions on specific items, which is untenable once the books ... facts of the case, which is incorrect. 6. The Id. CIT(A) ought to have fairly considered that the Ld. AO has rejected the books of accounts and resorted to estimation of income, and that the AO could not legally and logically make separate disallowances or additions based

Moorthy Ramasubramanian, Tuticorin vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Tirnelveli

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2007/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 145(3)

estimation of undisclosed income based on a disclosure of Rs.30,00,000/- made during a survey conducted on 30.01.2018. The AO rejected the books of account u/s. 145(3) and extrapolated the disclosed income for twelve months, resulting in an estimated net profit of Rs.37,83,249 as against disclosed ... regarding disclosure, power of attorney, etc., but again failed to provide the requisite supporting details. Therefore, the action of the AO in rejecting the books of account is held to be justified. 5.6 It is observed that the appellant declared a total turnover of Rs.18

Jag Mohan, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 18, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 7055/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं.7055/धिल्ली/2017(नि.व. 2014-15) Jag Mohan, 354, Tarun Enclave, Pitampura, ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Delhi 110034 Pan Ahdpm-3671-M बिाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Circle-18, New Delhi अपीलार्थी द्वारा/ Appellant By : S/Shri Raghav Sharma, Mohit Gupta, Chartered Accountants & Ms. Chandrima Choudhary, Advocate प्रधिवािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Namita Khurana Cit-Dr & Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/10/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement: 07/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-28, New Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 18/09/2017, For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. A Search & Seizure Operation U/S.132 Of The Income Was Conducted On 26.08.2013 In The Case Of Mohan India Group. The Assessee Is One Of The Directors Of Mohan India Group & The Assessee Was Also Covered Under Said Search. During

For Appellant: S/Shri Raghav Sharma, Mohit Gupta, CharteredFor Respondent: Ms. Namita Khurana CIT-DR &
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

contra, Ms. Namita Khurana representing the department vehemently defending the assessment order and the impugned order passed by CIT(A) submitted that rejection of books of account by the AO has not been contested by the assessee either before the CIT(A) nor has been challenged the same before ... assessee at this stage. Therefore, reference to the balance sheet by the assessee at this stage is misconceived and deserves to be rejected. Likewise, books of account of the company Mohan India P. Ltd. were rejected by the AO during assessment proceedings of the company and the same were

Anil Kumar Jain, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 585/RPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.584 & 585/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 Anil Kumar Jain 34, Maruti Life Style, Ravi Shankar University, S.O, Raipur-492 010 Pan: Ahypj7657H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Bilaspur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 3

assessee pertaining to both these appeals is that an estimated addition has been made on the ground of commission income earned without rejecting the books of account u/s.145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) and without passing an order of assessment u/s.144 ... Counsel for the assessee submitted that such addition on account of commission income has been made by the A.O without rejecting the books of account u/s.145(3) of the Act and without resorting to pass assessment u/s.144 of the Act. It was submitted by the Ld. Counsel that

Anil Kumar Jain, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 584/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.584 & 585/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 Anil Kumar Jain 34, Maruti Life Style, Ravi Shankar University, S.O, Raipur-492 010 Pan: Ahypj7657H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Bilaspur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 3

assessee pertaining to both these appeals is that an estimated addition has been made on the ground of commission income earned without rejecting the books of account u/s.145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) and without passing an order of assessment u/s.144 ... Counsel for the assessee submitted that such addition on account of commission income has been made by the A.O without rejecting the books of account u/s.145(3) of the Act and without resorting to pass assessment u/s.144 of the Act. It was submitted by the Ld. Counsel that

DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai vs. Subhkaran & Sons, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that by the revenue is dismissed, for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 3986/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Snehal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, CIT DR
Section 1Section 132

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by disregarding the rejection of books of accounts under Section 145 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the AO, which was justified based on the non-genuineness of the transactions ... Delhi), WHARE it was held that the AO's estimation of income was valid in cases of rejection of books of accounts. 7.On facts and circumstances of the case and in law. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the expenses claimed by the assessee, including indirect expenses

DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai vs. Subhkaran & Sons, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that by the revenue is dismissed, for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 3969/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Snehal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, CIT DR
Section 1Section 132

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by disregarding the rejection of books of accounts under Section 145 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the AO, which was justified based on the non-genuineness of the transactions ... Delhi), WHARE it was held that the AO's estimation of income was valid in cases of rejection of books of accounts. 7.On facts and circumstances of the case and in law. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the expenses claimed by the assessee, including indirect expenses

DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai vs. Subhkaran & Sons, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that by the revenue is dismissed, for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 3968/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Snehal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, CIT DR
Section 1Section 132

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by disregarding the rejection of books of accounts under Section 145 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the AO, which was justified based on the non-genuineness of the transactions ... Delhi), WHARE it was held that the AO's estimation of income was valid in cases of rejection of books of accounts. 7.On facts and circumstances of the case and in law. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the expenses claimed by the assessee, including indirect expenses

DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai vs. Subhkaran & Sons, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that by the revenue is dismissed, for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 3967/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Snehal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, CIT DR
Section 1Section 132

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by disregarding the rejection of books of accounts under Section 145 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the AO, which was justified based on the non-genuineness of the transactions ... Delhi), WHARE it was held that the AO's estimation of income was valid in cases of rejection of books of accounts. 7.On facts and circumstances of the case and in law. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the expenses claimed by the assessee, including indirect expenses

DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai vs. Subhkaran & Sons, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that by the revenue is dismissed, for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 3966/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Snehal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, CIT DR
Section 1Section 132

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by disregarding the rejection of books of accounts under Section 145 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the AO, which was justified based on the non-genuineness of the transactions ... Delhi), WHARE it was held that the AO's estimation of income was valid in cases of rejection of books of accounts. 7.On facts and circumstances of the case and in law. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the expenses claimed by the assessee, including indirect expenses

Subhkaran and Sons, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that by the revenue is dismissed, for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 2910/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Snehal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, CIT DR
Section 1Section 132

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by disregarding the rejection of books of accounts under Section 145 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the AO, which was justified based on the non-genuineness of the transactions ... Delhi), WHARE it was held that the AO's estimation of income was valid in cases of rejection of books of accounts. 7.On facts and circumstances of the case and in law. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the expenses claimed by the assessee, including indirect expenses

Subhkaran and Sons, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that by the revenue is dismissed, for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 2909/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Snehal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, CIT DR
Section 1Section 132

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by disregarding the rejection of books of accounts under Section 145 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the AO, which was justified based on the non-genuineness of the transactions ... Delhi), WHARE it was held that the AO's estimation of income was valid in cases of rejection of books of accounts. 7.On facts and circumstances of the case and in law. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the expenses claimed by the assessee, including indirect expenses

Subhkaran and Sons, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that by the revenue is dismissed, for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 2908/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Snehal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, CIT DR
Section 1Section 132

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by disregarding the rejection of books of accounts under Section 145 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the AO, which was justified based on the non-genuineness of the transactions ... Delhi), WHARE it was held that the AO's estimation of income was valid in cases of rejection of books of accounts. 7.On facts and circumstances of the case and in law. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the expenses claimed by the assessee, including indirect expenses

Subhkaran and Sons, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that by the revenue is dismissed, for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 2907/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Snehal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, CIT DR
Section 1Section 132

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by disregarding the rejection of books of accounts under Section 145 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the AO, which was justified based on the non-genuineness of the transactions ... Delhi), WHARE it was held that the AO's estimation of income was valid in cases of rejection of books of accounts. 7.On facts and circumstances of the case and in law. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the expenses claimed by the assessee, including indirect expenses

Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2 (1), Varanasi vs. Prominent Datamatics Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Varanasi

ITA 135/VNS/2020[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi05 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 124(1)(a)Section 124(2)Section 124(3)(a)Section 250(1)Section 255(4)Section 69A

Appellant did not comply with any of the notices and so questions asked for by AO remained unsubstantiated. AO rejected the books of accounts u/s 145(3) & made assessment u/s 144 of IT Act I.T.A. No.135/VNS/2020 28 C.IO.No.04/VNS/2021 Assessment Year:2017-18 after giving specific opportunity to the appellant ... were not produced and the bills and vouchers pertaining to all the expenses were not available for verification: AO has rejected the books of accounts u/s 145(3) of IT Act. On these facts and in the circumstances, best judgment assessment is required. I uphold action of AO in rejecting

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2965/MUM/2025[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2026AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 234ASection 250

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 8% by the learned Assessing Officer and thereby confirming addition ... circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in 2 Santosh Launjari Gupta, Mumbai. 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

Raees Alam Siddiqui, Ghazipur vs. Dy. C.I.T., Range - 1, Varanasi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 39/VNS/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi31 Dec 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Arvind Shukla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amandeep Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

There was no finding in the assessment order that the assessee had filed inaccurate particulars of income. It was submitted that the rejection of books of accounts and the estimation of the assessee’s income at a higher figure then what was disclosed in the assessee’s books