“estimation of income”

Assessment ProceduresSection 145Section 1453,061 judgments

The decision most relied on for estimation of income is CIT v. Simit P. Sheth (356 ITR 451), cited in 1,465 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on estimation of income

CIT v. Simit P. Sheth

356 ITR 451 · 2013 · High Court

1,465

citing judgments

When purchases are unproved or presumed to be from the grey market, the entire amount of such purchases should not be disallowed; instead, income can be estimated by applying a reasonable gross profit rate to the unaccounted sales or turnover, especially in assessments arising from search proceedings involving seized documents.

Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

314 ITR 62 · 2009 · Supreme Court

739

citing judgments

A provision for expenses, such as warranty, is a deductible liability for income tax purposes if it constitutes a present obligation arising from past events, and a reliable estimate of the amount of obligation is possible.

Sanjay Oilcake Industries v. CIT

316 ITR 274 · 2009 · High Court

460

citing judgments

In cases of alleged bogus or unverifiable purchases, rather than disallowing the entire purchase value, a reasonable profit element or a proportionate percentage of the purchases should be added back to the assessee's income.

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.

CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad

72 ITR 194 · 1969 · Supreme Court

272

citing judgments

If there is an unexplained cash credit, the Assessing Officer can treat it as the assessee's income, even when the income is finalized on an estimation basis, without proving its specific source. The onus then shifts to the assessee to prove that the income represented by the cash credit has already been taxed.

Commissioner of Sales Tax v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali

90 ITR 271 · 1973 · Supreme Court

232

citing judgments

The Supreme Court established principles for best judgment assessments, stating that some guesswork is inevitable but the assessment must be bona fide, rational, and free from bias or capriciousness. An appellate authority cannot substitute its judgment for that of the Assessing Officer unless the AO's assessment is shown to be biased, irrational, vindictive, or capricious, especially when the assessee fails to provide proper accounts or counter-evidence.

CIT v. Balchand Ajit Kumar

263 ITR 610 · 2003 · High Court

212

citing judgments

When making an addition for unaccounted receipts, on-money, or non-genuine purchases/sales, the addition should be restricted to the estimated profit element embedded in such transactions, rather than the entire gross amount, particularly when evidence of corresponding expenditure is incomplete. This estimation often involves applying a net profit rate.

Harigopal Singh v. CIT

258 ITR 85 · 2002 · High Court

203

citing judgments

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when an addition to income is made on an estimated basis without concrete evidence of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The provisions of section 271(1)(c) are not attracted to cases where income is assessed on an estimate basis.

Judgments citing estimation of income

Ashok K. Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 31(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 565/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Asok K. Shah, Income Tax Officer-31(1)(2), C-25, Sai Baba Enclave, Mumbai, बनाम/ S.V.Road, Vs. Goregaon West, Mumbai-400062 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Akeps3501N

Apex Court in Kachwala Gems vs JCIT (2007) 158 taxman 71 observed that an element of guesswork is inevitable in cases, where estimation of income is warranted. 2.2 The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 290 (Guj.) held/observed as under

Mr.Ajay C. Shah HUF, Prop. M/S.Glass and Hardware, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-26(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7195/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Ajay C. Shah, Income Tax Officer, C/O- Ajay C. Shah, Huf, Ward-26(1)(1), बनाम/ 60A/11, Sion Mahavir P.K. Bhavan, C-11, Vs. Chs, Scheme Road No.25C, R.No.703, 7Th Floor, Sion (West), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400062 Bandra-East, Mumbai-400051 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aahha5664F

Apex Court in Kachwala Gems vs JCIT (2007) 158 taxman 71 observed that an element of guesswork is inevitable in cases, where estimation of income is warranted. 6 Ajay C. Shah 2.2 The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs Bholanath Poly

Unilex Colours & Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 13(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the Ld

ITA 1556/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Unilex Colours & Dcit-13(1)(1), Chemicals Ltd. Mumbai बनाम/ 106-107, Advent Atria, Vs. Chincoli Bunder Road, Malad West, Mumbai-400064 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacu5230F

Section 234B

Apex Court in Kachwala Gems vs JCIT (2007) 158 taxman 71 observed that an element of guesswork is inevitable in cases, where estimation of income is warranted. 6 Unilex Colours & Chemicals Ltd. 2.2 The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs Bholanath Poly

Soubhagya Projects, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-7(1), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 743/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri Md. Afzal, ARFor Respondent: Smt. U. Minichandran, DR

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153

income for the year under consideration and also not to take copies for the impounded books for filing them. Accordingly, he has estimated the income of Rs. 16 Lakhs on the total deposits in the bank account estimated to be at Rs. 80 Lakhs [deposits in bank statements upto ... have been totaled to Rs. 76,37,508/-]. AO took the profit in the line of business at 20% and estimated the income at Rs. 16 Lakhs. Apart from that, addition was also made of Rs. 50 Lakhs stated to be disclosed amount in the course of survey. 4. Aggrieved

Maniga Jewellery, Coimbatore vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 2, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1692/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1692/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 M/S. Maniga Jewellery The Assistant Commissioner Of Represented By Its Erstwhile Partner Vs. Income Tax, Smt. A. Deepa, No. 208, Gowtham Non Corporate Circle 2, Arcade, 2Nd Floor, T V Samy Road, Coimbatore. R.S. Puram, Coimbatore 641 002. [Pan: Aaofm5053D] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Smt. Vijayaprabha, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.04.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Coimbatore, Dated 31.03.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. Besides Raising Various Grounds In The Grounds Of Appeal, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Mainly Argued That The Assessee Was Not Given Sufficient

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Vijayaprabha, JCIT

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

Counsel for the assessee mainly argued that the assessee was not given sufficient 2 I.T.A. No.1692/Chny/17 opportunity to produce its books and estimation of income on presumption, the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short ... same returned back. Since there was no representation from assessee’s side or 3 I.T.A. No.1692/Chny/17 any books were produced, the Assessing Officer estimated the income of the assessee at 10% of the turnover and the difference of ₹.2,58,704/- was brought to tax. On appeal

Vidyodya Educational Society, Visakhapatnam vs. The DCIT, Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 369/VIZ/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Appala Raju, DR

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 167B

there was no proper evidence. During the appeal hearing, for a query from the bench, the Ld. A.R. expressed no objection for estimation of income @ 20% of the gross receipts. We have gone through the submissions of the assessee as well as orders of the lower authorities and the arguments ... Ld.DR and of the view that the estimation of income @ 20% of the gross receipts is reasonable, accordingly, we direct the A.O. to estimate the income @ 20% on gross receipts and assessess the same as income. The assessee’s appeal on this ground is partly allowed. 10. The next submission

Bhavna Sunil Joshi, Mumbai vs. ITO 32(1)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1579/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Bhavna Sunil Joshi, Income Tax Officer B-71, Bldg. No.4, 7Th Floor, Ward-32(1)(3), बनाम/ Rustom Regency, Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Vs. Dahisar (West), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400068 Mumbai-400051 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aajpj6892N

ACIT, Circle-3, Bankura vs. Bharati Poultry Pvt. Ltd., Bankura

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee as well as Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1792/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1792/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit, Cir-3, Bankura Vs. Bharati Poultry Pvt. Ltd. “Bilashbhawa”, Rashtala, P.O&Dist.: Bankura, Chandmaridanga, P.O& Dist.:- Pin-722101. Bankura, 722101. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb 2814 L (Revenue) .. (Assessee) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1758/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bharati Poultry Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Cir-3, Bankura “Bilashbhawa”, Rashtala, P.O&Dist.: Bankura, Pin- Chandmaridanga, P.O& 722101. Dist.:- Bankura, 722101. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb 2814 L (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 145

accepted on the ground that, there cannot be rejection of audited accounts on sheer surmises or suspicion justifying invocation of section 145 and estimation of income @ 45.74% of the gross receipt, subsequently estimated @ 37.97 % by the CIT(A) on flimsygrounds without any reason or rhyme. 3. For that the estimation

M/S Bharati Poultry (P) Ltd., Bankura vs. ACIT, Circle-Bankura, Bankura

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee as well as Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1758/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 145

Ganesh Trading Co., Thane vs. ITO -3(3), Mumbai

ITA 4657/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 4657/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 69C

assessee is not merely that of a simpliciter addition in respect of profit involved in making of bogus purchases, but rather, that of estimation of income after rejection of books of account under Sec. 145(3) of the Act. Be that as it may, as in the case before ... thus uphold the order of the CIT(A), subject however to the aforesaid modification to the gross profit rate to be adopted for estimating the income of the assessee for the year under consideration. 15. The appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 4657/Mum/2015 is partly allowed and the appeal

Ashok Narayanan, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 6464/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhashok Narayanan Dcit 8(2) C/O Orion Commodities & 209, Aayakar Bhavan, Services Pvt. Ltd., B-401, Mumbai. Kotia Nariman Link Road, Vs. Andheri (W), Mumbai- 400053 Pan: Aaapn8540N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2018 Order Per Pawan Singh, J.M. 1. This Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of The Income-Tax Act (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

levied, as the assessee agreed for addition and no further appeal was filed. The Assessing Officer levied the penalty on the basis of estimation of income. The Assessing Officer levied the penalty on the basis of peak credit theory. The claim of the assessee was bonafide. In support

Girish Singla, Chandigarh vs. ACIT, Chandigarh

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

ITA 686/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year : 2013-14 Sh. Girish Singla, Vs. The Acit, Circle 5(1), Scf 156, Grain Market, Chandigarh Sector 26, Chandigarh Pan No. Agfps2595B

For Appellant: Sh. T.N. Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Chander Kanta, Sr.DR

Section 144

assessment u/s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') on the basis of best judgement rule and further the estimation of income on the basis of GP rate and thereby addition of Rs. 92,52,230/- into the income of the assessee. 3. At the outset ... Enterprise, who himself had admitted, that the was driver of the assessee. She has further submitted that the Assessing officer therefore had rightly estimated the income of the assessee on the basis of GP rate. The Ld. AR of the assessee, at this stage, has submitted that even

Prashant Nilakant Kadolikar, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 233/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.233/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Prashant Nilkanth Kadolikar, 75/3, Kojagiri Apartments, Lane No.6, Kothrud, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411029 …. Pan: Agvpk8023A Vs.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Aggarwal

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 234A

upon his return. The Assessing Officer thereof, had no option but to complete assessment under section 144 of the Act. The Assessing Officer estimated the income @ 70% of gross receipts based on the income shown by the assessee for assessment year 2007-08. The Assessing Officer noted from the assessment ... total receipts was wrong. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee had not furnished any return of income, hence the estimation of income had to be made in the hands of assessee. He further noted that the Assessing Officer had based the estimation on last year’s income and hence

Jatin K. Bhuta, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 25 (1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3247/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ramlal Negishri Jatin K. Bhuta Income Tax Officer-25(1)(1) 308 & 309 Sai Amrut Society Mumbai Vs. J.S. Road, Off Rokadia Lane Dahisar (W), Mumbai 400068 Pan – Aacpb6793P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia

Section 145(3)Section 68

nature of both kind of deposits was similar. On being asked, the learned A.R. has furnished a written prayer of the assessee to estimate the income by considering the peak credit method (telescoping) and admit the additional evidences under Rule 29 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules. The said prayer/application dated ... satisfied, then he is free to consider the alternate plea of the assessee on merits for estimation of income based on peak credit method. The AO shall allow the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and only thereafter pass the order afresh in accordance with

Ion Exchange Waterleau Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 6(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5209/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2009-10 Ion Exchange Waterleau Ltd Ito-6(3)(2), Ion House, 4Th Floor, Dr. E. Room No.503, 5Th Floor, बनाम/ Moses Road, Mahalakshmi, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400011 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aabci4403P "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri R.R.V.Raghavan राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai-Dr

Apex Court in Kachwala Gems vs JCIT (2007) 158 taxman 71 observed that an element of guesswork is inevitable in cases, where estimation of income is warranted. 6 Ion Exchange Waterleau Ltd. 2.2 The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs Bholanath Poly

The ACIT, Vijayawada vs. Sri Batchu Amarnath, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal No.427/Viz/2016, ITA No

ITA 456/VIZ/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Apr 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.427/Viz/2016 , I.T.A.No.428/Viz/2016 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively) Sri Batchu Amarnath Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1) D.No.23-31-3/B, Kommuvari Street Vijayawada Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada [Pan :Agrpb6279P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.456/Viz/2016 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2009-10) Acit Vs. Sri Batchu Amarnath Circle-3(1) D.No.23-31-3/B Vijayawada Kommuvari Street Satyanarayanapuram Vijayawada [Pan :Agrpb6279P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.07/Viz/2018 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.456/Viz/2016) Sri Batchu Amarnath Vs. Acit D.No.23-31-3/B, Kommuvari Street Circle-3(1) Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan :Agrpb6279P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) धनधााररती की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam,Ar राजस्ि की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri K.C.Das, Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10.04.2018 18 .04.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam,ARFor Respondent: Shri K.C.Das, DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

filed by the revenue is not maintainable and accordingly dismissed. ITA 428/Viz/2016 8. The only issue before us for consideration is whether the estimation of income at 12.5% made by the Ld.CIT(A) on amount of Rs.18,87,500/- is 6 ITA Nos.427,456/Viz/2016 and CO No.7/Viz/2018 Sri Batchu Amarnath ... submissions of the assessee by taking into consideration of only assessment year under consideration i.e. 2010-11 made payment of Rs.18,87,500/-, estimated the income at Rs.2,35,938/- at 12.5% on 18,87,500/- and directed the AO to restrict the addition to Rs.2,35,938/- in lieu

Sri Batchu Amarnath, Vijayawada vs. The Dy. CIT, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal No.427/Viz/2016, ITA No

ITA 428/VIZ/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Apr 2018AY 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam,ARFor Respondent: Shri K.C.Das, DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

Sri Batchu Amarnath, Vijayawada vs. The Dy. CIT, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal No.427/Viz/2016, ITA No

ITA 427/VIZ/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Apr 2018AY 2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam,ARFor Respondent: Shri K.C.Das, DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

Tuta Lakshmana Rao, Eluru vs. The ITO, Eluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 393/VIZ/2016[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Apr 2018AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अऩीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.393/Viz/2016 (ननधधारण वषा/Assessment Year:2004-05) Tuta Lakshmana Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Prop :Chakri Bar & Restaurant Ward-1 Canal Road, Eluru- Eluru West Godavari District [Pan :Acbpt2971J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri K.C.Das, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 10.04.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 18 .04.2018 :

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri K.C.Das, DR

Section 175

draft/ cheque. Hence, instead of giving outright credit for the withdrawals, in our opinion, it would meet the ends of justice, if we estimate the income out of the said transactions treating the same as business transactions. The AO himself has given credit of the sates turn over ... response to the show cause notice issued by the AO, the assessee has submitted that ultimately, the ITAT directed the AO to estimate the income of the assessee and accordingly, the AO has made the addition of Rs.5,00,000/- on the basis of estimation, therefore, no penalty

Mandava Nageswara Rao, Visakhapatnam vs. The ITO, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 69/VIZ/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अऩीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.69/Viz/2015 (ननधधारण वषा/Assessment Year:2011-12) Mandava Nageswara Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.30-13-11 Ward-1(2) Dabagardens Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan :Adppm7610Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri K.C.Das, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 11.04.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.04.2018

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri K.C.Das, DR

APBCL that the purchases made by Shri Sai Durga Bar and Restaurant, M.Nageswara Rao as proprietor was Rs.1,14,84,877/-. As regards estimation of income, the Ld.CIT(A) relied on the orders of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Hyderabad in the case of M/s Mallikarjuna Bar & Restaurant ... No.186/Hyd/2012 dated 4 Mandava Nageswara Rao, Visakhapatnam 28.6.2012 and directed the AO to estimate the income @10% of purchases on 1,14,84,877/-. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.AR furnished the copies