← All Phrases

“Section 145(3)”

Section References (mined)Section 145Section 145(3)2,270 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 145(3) is CIT v. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd. (312 ITR 254), cited in 968 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 145(3)

CIT v. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd.
312 ITR 254 · 2009 · Supreme Court
968
citing judgments

Foreign exchange fluctuations, whether gains or losses, are inextricably linked to the underlying business transaction and must be accounted for under the mercantile system. The Supreme Court also affirmed the standard accounting principle of valuing stock at cost or net realisable value, whichever is lower.

CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.
331 ITR 236 · 2011 · High Court
694
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer loses jurisdiction and the entire reassessment becomes invalid if no addition is made in respect of the income that formed the basis of the reopening. Explanation 3 to Section 147 does not permit assessing other escaped income unless an addition is made for the original income forming the reason to believe.

Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT
82 ITR 363 · 1971 · Supreme Court
654
citing judgments

Tax liability for an item of income or expenditure is determined solely by the provisions of the Income-tax Act. Entries in an assessee's books of account are not conclusive and do not govern the taxability or deductibility of an item, as the legal rights and obligations under the Act prevail.

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.

Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. Asst. CIT
58 ITD 428 · 1996 · ITAT
430
citing judgments

Where purchases are found to be non-genuine or fictitious, a reasonable disallowance of 25% of such purchases or the peak credit, whichever is higher, can be made. This is applied to address unexplained expenditure under Section 69C when actual goods are likely procured from the grey market.

CIT v. Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
372 ITR 619 · 2015 · High Court
391
citing judgments

Transactions defying human probability cannot be applied to isolated purchases if sales are accepted as genuine, and purchases cannot be disallowed without considering the entire transaction and documentary evidence. Failure to produce parties in an assessment proceeding may not be fatal to the assessee.

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.

Judgments citing Section 145(3)

Shri Ramesh Singh Rana, Lucknow vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 576/LKW/2019[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow17 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.576/Lkw/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Ramesh Singh Rana V. Dcit Range-4 3-B, Talkatora Road, Rajaji 5-Ashok Marg, Aaykar Puram, Lucknow-226017. Bhawan, Lucknow- 226001. Pan:Aggpr0749B अपीलाथ"/(Appellant) ""यथ"/(Respondent) अपीलाथ" "क और से/Appellant By: None ""यथ" "क और से /Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) सुनवाई "क तार"ख / Date Of Hearing: 08 04 2025 घोषणा "क तार"ख/ Date Of 17 04 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R Per Anadee Nath Misshra, A.M.: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Lucknow Dated 11.06.2019, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: -

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 133(3)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

appellants case and are not applicable in the present case. c. The AO has rejected the books of accounts of appellant by invoking section 145(3) of the Act for the reasons outlined in Para 9.2 above and estimated NP rate of the appellant. The Provisions of section 145(3 ... accounts of the appellant. In view of these facts the books of accounts were rightly rejected by the AO by invoking provisions of section 145(3) of the Act. The action of AO is hereby upheld. Further, the appellant had shown NP rate @ 2.12% for AY under consideration which

Income Tax Officer Ward 3(1), Ludhiana vs. Gaurav Kumar, Ludhiana

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

ITA 412/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 145(3)Section 69

properly to notices and only relied on others’ statements to support his case. 3.1 The AO rejected assessee’s books of account under Section 145(3), due to fictitious entries and lack of corroborative evidence. The cash deposits of Rs. 1,78,96,190/- during demonetization were treated as unexplained ... appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the Ld. AO rejected the assessee’s books of accounts under Section 145(3) and made an addition of Rs. 1,78,96,190/- under Section 69 read with Section 115BBE, primarily relying on statements from suppliers

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- 4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Creative Gems and Jewellery Limited, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal inITA 2821/MUM/2024

ITA 2821/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms.AasifaKhan,ARFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani (Sr. DR)
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 68

account. Hence, it was submitted that that the disallowance of entire disputed Sales could not be made.Further, on perusal of the provisions of Section 145(3) of the Act, it is submitted that the correctness of Sales cannot be challenged without pointing out any specific mistake or deficiency

Creative Gems and Jewellery Limited, Goregaon East Mumbai vs. Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhawan

In the result, Revenue’s appeal inITA 2821/MUM/2024

ITA 2053/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms.AasifaKhan,ARFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani (Sr. DR)
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 68

account. Hence, it was submitted that that the disallowance of entire disputed Sales could not be made.Further, on perusal of the provisions of Section 145(3) of the Act, it is submitted that the correctness of Sales cannot be challenged without pointing out any specific mistake or deficiency

ITO-WD1(2)(1) Ahmedabad, Vejalpur Income Tax Office vs. Bhrugesh Dineshbhai Shah, Kalupur Ahmedabad

In the result, Ground No.2 raised by the assesse is hereby allowed

ITA 1219/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Ao Who Made The Following Additions: I. Estimation Of Gross Profit At 5% On Purchases & Disallowance Of 25% Expenses Rs.74,85,796/-, Ii. Unexplained Credit U/S. 68 Of The Act Of Rs.18,77,688/-, Iii. Sundry Creditors & Unexplained Rs.8,83,31,369/- & Iv. Capital Work-In-Progress Rs.15,87,000/-

For Appellant: Shri Divyakant Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Shri V Nandakumar, CIT.DR &
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

incomplete submissions, the AO could not ascertain the actual GP and NP, leading to the rejection of the books of accounts under Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act. In my view, the non-submission of documents should not lead to the conclusion that the accounts are not reliable

Bhrugesh Dineshbhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, Ground No.2 raised by the assesse is hereby allowed

ITA 1214/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Ao Who Made The Following Additions: I. Estimation Of Gross Profit At 5% On Purchases & Disallowance Of 25% Expenses Rs.74,85,796/-, Ii. Unexplained Credit U/S. 68 Of The Act Of Rs.18,77,688/-, Iii. Sundry Creditors & Unexplained Rs.8,83,31,369/- & Iv. Capital Work-In-Progress Rs.15,87,000/-

For Appellant: Shri Divyakant Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Shri V Nandakumar, CIT.DR &
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

incomplete submissions, the AO could not ascertain the actual GP and NP, leading to the rejection of the books of accounts under Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act. In my view, the non-submission of documents should not lead to the conclusion that the accounts are not reliable

Payal Verma, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 341/RPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.341/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Payel Verma Prop. M/S. Jai Vriddhi Traders, Ananj Mandi Line, Behind Nehru Bhawan, Supela Bhilai-490 023 Pan: Aovpv3159G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Mrs. Payel Verma, AssesseeFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69A

found any fault in the books of accounts during the course of assessment proceedings and did not reject the books of accounts under section 145(3) and hence as per the settled law, the addition cannot be sustained. h) The learned NFAC erred in not appreciating that the Assessing Officer

The ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Adinath Ornaments Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 553/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.553/Ahd/2022 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ito Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad बनाम/ V/S. M/S. Adinath Ornaments Pvt. Ltd. 2, Dipawali Centre, Opp. Old High Court, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad – 380 009 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aafca9867K अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/ (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Aseem L Thakkar, Ar Revenue By: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.10.2022 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)"], For The Assessment Year 2017-18, Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2019 Framed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"] By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”]

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 40A(3)Section 68

deposit of Rs.2.32 crores as unexplained cash credit under section 68, taxable under section 115BBE. The books of account were also rejected under section 145(3), and GP was estimated on a higher rate, resulting in an additional addition of Rs.4,51,379/-. Further, disallowance of Rs.2 ... same, which the AO has failed to do in this case. 7.4 The AO rejected the assessee's books of account under section 145(3) of the Act and estimated the Gross Profit at 0.36% based on the succeeding year, as against 0.13% declared by the assessee

Income Tax Officer Ward-2(1), Faridabad vs. Prahlad, Palwal

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed as above

ITA 42/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 145(3)Section 146(3)Section 40Section 40A(3)

treating it as subsumed in estimated addition of Rs.13,38,765/-. 2. CIT(A) erred in invoking provisions of section 145(3) to reject Books of accounts even when the prevalent facts did not require rejection simply because purchases to the extent of Rs.2,12,26,191/- were found ... never requested this unit prior to the issue of show cause notice dated 16.09.2022 to reject his books of account as per section 145(3) of the Act and estimate his income accordingly When the assessee was pointed out about the claim of excess purchase over and above

Nirankari Sons Jewellers Private Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 18(3), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2818/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Sh. Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

cash credit tantamount to disregarding the audited accounts; if sales is disregarded, it must be followed by rejection of books of accounts under section 145(3) of the Act. It is never the case of the revenue that the cash was utilized elsewhere and not deposited and that sales were

Virupaxappa Sidramappa Bembalgi, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Belgavu

ITA 11/PAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji08 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 011/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S Virupakaxappa Sidramappa Bembalgi 580, Saraf Katta, Shahapur, Belgaum-590003. Pan : Aadfv3936F . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr A S Patil [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

section (2), the Assessing Officer may make an assessment in the manner provided in section 144. (Emphasis supplied) 10. An austere reading of section 145(3) of the Act, envisages that there could be existence of three situations where assessing officer can resort to rejection of books of account ... Judgement assessment and in the manner provided u/s 144 of the Act is required to be understood while resorting to the provision of section 145(3) of the Act. It is well settled law that, in the case of Best Judgement assessment u/s 144 of the Act, the Assessing Officer

Kaur Sain Spinning Mills, Ludhiana vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 819/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar and Ms. Muskan Garg, C.A’sFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 145(3)Section 250Section 69A

turnover so as to increase the cash credit limits/loans from the bank. The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected the books of accounts under Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, mentioning discrepancies in transactions with M/s B.S. Traders, the absence of supporting documents, and the lack of evidence ... light of the above, we find that the action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee under Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, lacks justification both in fact and in law. The assessee had duly furnished an exhaustive set of financial

Arti Shailesh Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO - 19(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals under consideration are allowed

ITA 4192/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Ms. Ridhisha Jain, Ld. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Umesh Chandra Sinha, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDER KUMAR

Arti Shailesh Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO - 19(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals under consideration are allowed

ITA 4178/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Ms. Ridhisha Jain, Ld. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Umesh Chandra Sinha, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDER KUMAR

Paras Nath Gupta, Ramna Road, Gaya vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Dc/Ac Circle-I

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

ITA 345/PAT/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Patna04 Apr 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250

found any omission or commission, he is not justified in rejecting the books of account by applying the proviso of section 145(3) of the I.T Act, 1961. 3. For that by not finding any omission or commission either in sales or purchases, the learned A.O. has accepted the gross ... calculating Net Profit @ 2% of the turnover of Rs 97,44,07,126/- after rejecting Books of Accounts applying the proviso to section 145(3), which is not Fair and Reasonable since there is very low margin in the wholesale trading in bulk volume business of necessary FOODGRAIN PRODUCTS

M/S Fluor Danier India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2696/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Dcit, Vs Reliance Ritu Kumar Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle-4, (Earlier Known As Ritika New Delhi Pvt.Ltd.), B-38, Sagar Apartment, 6, Tilak Marg, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aabcr5510N Appellant Respondent

Section 1

ITA No.2696/Del/2023 & Others IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “C” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

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

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

ITA 81/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

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

Assessing Officer for the reasons stated in the assessment order rejected the books of account of the assessee by invoking the provisions of section 145(3) of the Act and considering the comparative profits by others in similar line of business which was in the range

Samasuddin, Mainpuri vs. The I.T.O. 4(2)(4), Mainpuri

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 79/AGR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 80C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. Arul Raja, Tuticorin

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2845/CHNY/2024[2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.: 2845/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Assistant Commissioner Of Arul Raja, Income Tax, V. 43J, Saint Peter Koil Street, Central Circle -2, Tuticorin – 628 001. Madurai – 625 002. [Pan: Aevpr-9611-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, F.C.A ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Dr.M.D. Vijay Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai, Dated 09.09.2024 & Pertains To Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Erroneous On Facts Of The Case & In Law. 2. The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.67,96,000/- Made Towards Unexplained Money U/S.69A. 2.1 The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Holding That The Statement Made By The Assessee That The Source For The Cash· Was Withdrawals From Banks As A Plausible Explanation In The Absence Of Proof Evidencing The Transactions & Wrongly Observed That Burden Of Proof Shifted To The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, F.C.A ""For Respondent: Dr.M.D. Vijay Kumar, JCIT
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69A

made in the assessment order. At the outset, the AO has not rejected the books the accounts as per the provisions of section 145(3) of the Act. Without rejecting the books of accounts making observation that the cash book was manipulated cannot hold good. 6.3.6 It is significant

Shri Ashwani Garg, Haridwar vs. ITO, W-1(3)(1), Hardwar

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

ITA 57/DDN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun02 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara(Through Video Conferencing) Ashwani Garg, Vs. Ito, Plot No. 106-106A, Sector- Ward-1(3)(1), 6A, Sidcul, Haridwar, Haridwar Uttarakhand (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Alcpg7518A Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02/04/2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A. S. Rana, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 145(3)Section 69A

business and added a sum of Rs. 2,80,000/- after rejecting the books of accounts in terms of Section 145(3) of the Act. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Learned NFAC. None appeared on behalf of the assessee before the Learned NFAC and the Learned NFAC dismissed